User talk:808 AD

Welcome, 808 AD!

Welcome to Wikipedia, 808 AD! I'm I dream of horses, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 19:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Regency of Algiers. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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) 18:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Regency of Algiers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not move articles without discussion and consensus, as you did at Saadian invasion of the Songhai Empire. The process to follow for requesting a move is outlined at WP:RM. Moving articles on your own should only happen when fixing typos or obvious errors. R Prazeres (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the widely used term for indicating the invasion/conquest. 808 AD (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no widely used term, because it's a descriptive title, and the current title is more precise. Regardless of that, go through a WP:RM and present your arguments there. Unexplained page moves are disruptive. R Prazeres (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the clarification. My intention wasn't to disrupt the article. 808 AD (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Please do not mark edits as "minor" unless you are merely fixing a typo or format error. Any edit that adds, removes, or changes substantial content is not a minor edit. Please see Help:Minor edit. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:808_AD reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Conflicts between the Regency of Algiers and Morocco. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I know how it works now. I will just convince somebody else to create a new account (or create it myself) to add somthing nonsensical to Wikipedia (but i really want it to be added). Then I will use my original account to defend it. And bingo, everything is ok. 808 AD (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know that's not how it works. There is nothing nonsensical about what was added as it is something that is mentioned in the article, unlike what you were edit warring over. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the conflicts ended in 1795 while the article mentions the borders of the 16th and 17th centuries, so no it doesn't mention the result of the conflicts. 808 AD (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as I do that's a typo and besides, if that's what you believe, why add an unsourced border while mentioning (in the edit summary) that the article says nothing about the borders? Now, how about you answer Bbb23's question? M.Bitton (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Wadi Kiss was there for at least one year before you both came. 808 AD (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing an editor of socking?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: since they obviously read your question and ignored it, my guess is that they either are accusing me of socking or are hinting at engaging in meatpuppetry from now on. M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing them of anything. They might be unrelated to Descartes16, the weird thing is how they managed to take the chance and re-added the unsourced information. I'm blocked now as a result. 808 AD (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for violating 3RR, not because a new user made an edit. And you are accusing M.Bitton of sock or meat puppetry, which is a personal attack. If you do it again, I will block you for longer than 48h - up to and including indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They just clearly accused my of socking, didn't they? 808 AD (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They accused you of socking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimoooIX, the proper venue for such allegations, and they supported their accusation with evidence. You weren't blocked because, despite a technical finding of "possilikely", The Wordsmith did not find the behavioral similarities between you and other socks sufficiently compelling. Your accusation, OTOH, is not backed up by anything except a very experienced editor agreed with a new editor, you didn't like it, and edit-warred over it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that they did it even before filing the so-called SPI, in a regular discussion like this one. 808 AD (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Algerian Expedition to Tuat. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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) 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Algerian Expedition to Tuat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding and harassment

Your hounding and harassment has to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that no one can counter your actions? Merely because someone reverted your edit, you cry "harassment" and "hounding"? 808 AD (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you decided to continue the harassment and are now edit warring again, I will ping Bbb23 (an admin). M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ping whoever you want. 808 AD (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also remind them of the result of this SPI. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. 808 AD (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you always find a way to only appear when it's time to revert my edits. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said about you. Furthermore, the purpose of my Wikipedia account is far more significant than merely reverting your edits. 808 AD (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you decided to continue the edit warring while falsely claiming that the issue has been resolved, I will make it very easy for you. The next revert will earn you a trip to ANI and this time, I will make a proper report about you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared from nowhere to remove the map, you didn't even participate on the censensus of creating that page, as for me, I did, and I was following the page since it was created (so don't dare you tell me I was harassing you). The issue of Smara is resolved, and we're not obliged to satisfy you. 808 AD (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was and there still is no consensus to use an WP:OR map. If you can't read the talk page, then that's your problem, but lying like you did (by falsely claiming that the issue is resolved) is not acceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this consensus Talk:Alawi dynasty #Splitting proposal (and seeking feedback). Anyway, NAADAAN has updated the map, I believe that's the best map we've made so far. 808 AD (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you want, so long as you don't make false claims about a fictitious consensus and edit war over it. M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@808 AD: While there is some WP:BLUDGEONING happening from many sides here, I would like to ask you to stop being deliberately provocative and hostile. From the very beginning, your first reaction to M.Bitton's restoration of an older map (the one in use at the article's creation) was to edit-war. Since then, you've been posting an opposing comment to almost everything either M.Bitton or Nourrerahmane say on the talk page and it's true that your statements often don't follow from any previous consensus. So at some point, when you've repeated your position many times already, it is healthier to back away and leave the discussion open for new editors. Again, if you think other editors are the problem, go to WP:ANI or seek one of the many options of dispute resolution. R Prazeres (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not meant to be provocative or hostile. I'm sorry if they seemed that way. Your comment came at the perfect time; I was starting to feel tired and getting a headache. I think it's time to stop and rest. Thank you. 808 AD (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Moroccan expedition to Chenguit

Hello, 808 AD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Moroccan expedition to Chenguit, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Moroccan expedition to Chenguit

Hello, 808 AD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Moroccan expedition to Chenguit".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]