User talk:2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC

November 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bombardment of Algiers (1683). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reading the article helps

Did you miss the part that says "Louis XIV failed to either destroy Algiers or force the Algerians to make peace on his terms"? M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No I haven’t. I’ve taken it to account. Though the outcome still seems favourable to France. Hence why I changed the result. Maybe you should see my own perspective 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems like WP:OR to me. The bottom line is that France failed to achieve its objective, so if anything, it should be described as an Algerian victory. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You should check the sources I’ve provided. You claim they’re “cherry picked” yet they’re attached to the wiki page as a whole. The book : “ Captives and Corsairs: France and Slavery in the Early Modern Mediterranean” literally refers this bombardment as a victory for France. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So are others, including the one whose statement I cited above. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m aware, what relevance does this hold? 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That France failed to achieve its objective. In fact, another important piece of information missing: the French ambassador who was stuffed into a canon and fired like a ball. M.Bitton (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

France may have not gained their full objectives. They still gained advantages during this bombardment.

Additionally, the part of the page where it explains Louis failed to achieve his objectives is cited with the same book that refers this bombardment as a victory for France. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

sorry I misread one of the sources but nevertheless, France (which I admit failed to gain some of their objectives) still gained advantages from this bombardment. Maybe id label it a French military victory 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from being WP:OR, there is no such parameter in the template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There is. I’ve read the pages in the book. Just because I made one mistakes doesn’t mean that my overall arguments are invalid. The book is Captives and Corsairs: France and Slavery in the Early Modern Mediterranean and it explicitly states the bombardment as a victory for the French. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing in the infobox template (that I suggest you familiarize yourself with). M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

How about you take a look at the book first then attack my arguments. Maybe then you can gain more of a nuanced view rather than just outright not really looking through my own view 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

How about you check other sources? M.Bitton (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You don’t answer a question with another one but ok. I’ve been checking them and your reasonings are valid though I just don’t think it’s indecisive 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally the fact that you’re not even willingly to check my own sources just reaffirms my point where you don’t really look at my own perspective 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You're telling what you think and I'm telling what I think. M.Bitton (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Except you’re not looking through my own view. I’m looking through yours and I agree you have valid reasoning. Yet you fail to take account my arguments 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already sent you the books and the websites behind my rationale, you’re just choosing not to take a look at them though. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you're not looking from my view of view that you stretched over two sections (to force me to repeat myself). Are you familiar with MezzoMorto? M.Bitton (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Making you repeat yourself is me trying to understand your views and trying to understand your perspective and also yes I’m familiar with MezzoMorto

what’s actually happening is that you’re not looking from my own perspective, as aforementioned I’ve sent you the books and the websites behind my rationale you’re just choosing not to read them 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you're familiar with MezzoMorto, here's a reliable source that says that he opened fire on the French, forcing their fleet to withdraw. Which makes this an Algerian victory. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ll take a look at it when I got time. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Let’s not also forget that when I asked you why you changed the 1682 bombardment, you replied “I suggest you ask yourself that question” preventing me from truly seeing your perspective. While I’m openly giving you my perspective to check you’re making it difficult for me to see yours. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

may I also ask, why you changed the 1682 bombardment to a victory for Algiers? 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you ask yourself that question because you changed it (I simply reverted your undiscussed change). Again, the failed objective is the equivalent of a defeat (something that is true in any war). M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to weather, not due to the Algerian’s resistance. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

France didn't achieve its objective, that's a fact (there is no "may" about it). The cause is irrelevant, what matters is they failed. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

How about I put it like this. Let’s use the war of Spanish succession as an example. Britain failed one of their objectives during it (preventing a Franco-Spanish alliance) yet they’re still widely seen as the victors of that war along side the grand alliance.

My point is; though objectives are not always per se met. One can still gain advantages from a war/engagement. One more than the other. Hence why I changed it too a victory for France. 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That's baseless WP:OR. One goes to war to achieve a political objective, if they fail to achieve it, then they cannot possibly described as victors (that makes no sense whatsoever). M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s the thing though, I’m mostly talking from a military perspective not a political one as you’re talking about. At best I’d rather just label the page as a “French military victory” and “politically indecisive” 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I know what you're referring to and I also know what I'm referring to when talking about the parameters of the infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t really seem like it I mean you never really look through my own prescriptive on the entire thing 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We have different views, so if by not looking at it from yours, you mean I don't agree with you, then that goes both ways. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You’re not understanding my point. What I’m saying is you’re not looking it in a nuanced approach. That meaning, that you’re not really taking account of what I’m saying and the sources I’ve provided 2A02:C7C:EEEC:6600:79BE:2A0D:F90D:68AC (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: you continue to edit war while ignoring the above comment and the one that was left on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

---