User talk:Moroccansahraoui

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to List of countries has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jackol ๏̯͡๏﴿ 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to List of countries constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —Angelo De La Paz (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to List of countries (Evidence), you will be blocked from editing. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to List of flags by country (Evidence), you will be blocked from editing. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of countries. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moroccansahraoui, please keep in mind that edit wars hurt the encyclopedia. Please refrain from making any more changes to the article before you all agree. I see that other territories are listed in the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that some wrong information on Wikipedia are becoming established facts. That hurts the reputation of the kingdom of Morocco and the Saharaouis belonging to the kingdom of Morocco. I as all the unionist sahraouis feel abused by some allegations on Wikipedia. I have no appeal to correct for example that Western Sahara isn't a country and that Western Sahara is a non self-governing territory disputed between the kingdom of Morocco and a separatist faction under the name of Polisario. I tried to talk to the moderator to find a consensus but the person in charge of validating seems to be the man of the WESTERN SAHARA WIKIPROJECT. In such case, he can't be impartial. His personal views are advanced each time I mentionned the reality of the region at the UN level. Considering Western Sahara as a country induces people into error. There is no republic in Western Sahara...so many established facts which I have no appeal to correct. So what's the thing to do? thanks--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the talk page, and I don't think there is any cabal here to keep WS in the list. The arguments oposing the removal make sense and I would encourage you to drop the matter, or at least not to remove the entry without gaining consensus first on the talk pages of the articles. Otherwise, we might have to remove your editing privileges in order to avoid an edit-war. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that while many people associate Country and sovereign states, the first is a a political division of a geographical entity. It seems reasonable to say that WS is a political division in Africa (even if the SADR is not recognized by all as a government). -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Ahmed, please stop making personal attacks, as you did here. Please remember what I said: comment only on content and not other users. Comments such as "Justin, you aren't here on Wikipedia to spread impartiality. You are here to propagate Polisario Front theses" and "Justin, you are very young (26 old years) and you are far from the region, you have no idea about the reality of the ground" are inappropriate. I don't want to see you blocked which is why I'm asking you to stop and try to be more professional. Thanks. Khoi khoi 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry for that but I feel really abused and oppressed by the fact that there is no way to comment, no way to discuss, no way to take into account other views than the one spread on the concerned page. I can't believe it. I don't think Wikipedia is the place where the unique idea, the unique view is promoted. I believe on Wikipedia because of it's worldwide reference to get information. In such case, I am trying to demonstrate that the editor is wrong when he is affirming that Western Sahara is a country because the UN is saying that Western Sahara is a territory. Am I wrong on insisting to rectify this? Am I wrong when I am asking the editor to rectify? knowing that there is no consensus on that and that many others are against the fact that Western Sahara is considered as a country. The editor don't want to rectify even if there is no consensus (he wrote it). In such case, what to do? please do advice me the process of arbitration as I am new on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, here is what Justin (koavf) wrote about my established comments on Western Sahara Page "Again, what this has to do with it being on a list of countries is beyond me. You're never going to get Western Sahara deleted from this list; it's not going to happen". What does that mean?

A good way to comment is by citing sources; see the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. It is always good to suggest compromises, so perhaps instead of removing Western Sahara from the list entirely, you can add that the UN doesn't consider it to be a country. But first I could recommend that you suggest this. Also see the relevant page on dispute resolution. I think all that Koavf was trying to point out is that a lot of editors agree that Western Sahara should remain on the list, but I'm not sure if there's a clear consensus about what to say in the footnote.

So my main point is check out WP:DR, and try to keep an open mind. Be reasonable when discussing things with other users, and make suggestions as to how the dispute can be resolved. Khoi khoi 23:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS:Many thanks for your advices. I did my best to make the debate open and based on established facts not on the content of pro-moroccan vs pro-polisarian websites. I think that the UN is beyond any suspicion. The problem is that the main editor Justin (koavf) is in charge of the Western Sahara Wikiproject. I got a look to many pages on this project and I noticed that a lot of information are wrong or incomplete. He profits on the lack of information of other editors to impose his point of view of the western sahara issue without any respect to the UN views and reports!!! I feel abused. I feel oppressed. I am saying the truth and the reality of the ground and none of the editors is taking care of it. Well, 2 or 3 editors agreed my point of view. 1 editor was neutral to propose a consensus but the main editor is insisting on his approach to impose the unique idea and the unique point of view. I don't know what to do in such case. Any other advice?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, information on Wikipedia is not based on the truth, but verifiability, which goes back to your point about the UN. According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, an option you can take eventually if the conflict seems to be going nowhere is request formal mediation. But what exactly is the dispute here? As I understand it, you want Western Sahara removed from the list, but many editors disagree. Do you have any compromises in mind? Khoi khoi 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

MS:I am not supporting to delete WS from the list. I am supporting to delete WS from the first section of the list and keep WS with its actual statute in another section. I am also saying that WS has not to be mentionned with 2 statutes on the same list : country vs disputed territory (which I guess reflects more the reality of the ground). In the "list of sovereign states", WS is mentionned without any official state/flag. "SADR" is associated to WS in another section. Let's do the same. Concerning the fact that many users disagree, I think that "Orange Tuesday" made an interesting proposal for a consensus but it wasn't taken into account by Justin.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Moroccansahraoui —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS:Justin, you are just profiting on my youth on Wikipedia. I unfortunately am not used to Wikipedia rules. I also would like to mention your unbearable biases to the trustee committee. I feel abused by Justin behavior.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I would be happy to assist you in understanding the rules at Wikipedia and the only one that I think you might be violating is the one on sockpuppetry (you seem to have some difficulty with verifiable sources as well, but that will sort out itself.) This is not the first time that a cabal of pro-Moroccans has spontaneously sprung up on Wikipedia, and I'm not wasting my time like I have in the past if this is just blatant sockpuppetry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would like your help to understand how I can make an appeal to a neutral committee in Wikipedia to make the final judgment on our 2 arguments basis. My idea is to get people 100% neutral and not from the "Justin Wikipedia fan club". You will have to make a little presentation summerizing your arguments, I will have to do the same. The final judgment should be made by this neutral committee. Any help on getting this.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Well, if you want, you can look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS:Let's ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion..--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Checkuser request

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

In a related note, since your name seemed familiar to me when you filled the RFCU case, I took the liberty to review the above sockpuppetry case. I admit that after carefully reviewing the contributions of the users Koavf reported, especially the logged out user, I am a bit puzzled. I would like to remind you that using multiple identities in order to mislead the other editors is a blockable offense. I don't wish to pursue the matter further and ask a checkuser to look at the server logs for now, but if you were indeed doing just that, I urge you to cease this behavior. Trust me, you'd get caught eventually. You can find my full comments on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Moroccansahraoui. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Following the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Moroccansahraoui, I've blocked editing from several other accounts indefinitely, and from this account for one week. Please limit yourself to the use of one account, or carefully review Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy before using multiple accounts in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS: What's that? I am using one account from the beginning. What are you saying? It's amazing how you were mislead again by Justin. YOu have been mislead by Justin regarding the Western Sahara Wikiproject since a long time!!!!!!! I have no idea about the IP address I am using. I am making a connection from an ISP from the kingdom of Morocco and I have no idea about my public non routable IP address because I have no fix address. I can't believe it. I didn't have time to defend my self and you took this hative decision to block me. There is a big ISP (IAM) in Morocco from the north to the south (Western Sahara) and there are many IP connection resellers for people living in Morocco and people living outside of Morocco. I can't understand your decision. I have no idea about people you have associated to my account. I believe those people had very good english than I do. I supposed that they were english speakers native and I do agree that I was happy to have support on my comments but you sipmly blocked their particpation to the debate by fabricating this association. A supporter of Justin made a parallele between my comments and the other ones to help the admins on blocking me!!! Justin has the power as he is saying all the time and he will keep the power to say whatever he wants about Western Sahara issue. By doing what you did, you simply support Justin on his wrong information on Western Sahara. Do you think that one week will change something to the reality on the ground? to the reality of the statute of Western Sahara? You are 100% wrong. Western Sahara is a disputed territory between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front the sole body recognized by the UN. Justin also profits on my youth on Wikipedia to direct your opinions on my participation. I did my best to rectify some wrong information running on Wikipedia since a long time but you decide to support darkness and fascism. I repeat again I have no relationship with the account you mentionned. If you base your conclusion on IP addresses so you are totally wrong. Let me say that blocking me is a fascist action to support darkness and distorsion of the reality on the ground.

I can admit that Justin was strong enough to divert your attention from the real subject : the consensus of WS entry on the list of coutries.

I asked the admins to check the IPs of Justin (koavf) to check if she/he's making connections from the US as she/he pretends, from Algeria, Spain or...South Africa. Could anyone verify her/his IP addresses?

My personal conclusion is the admins were blind and hative in their decision. The kingdom of Morocco isn't the US or the UK...we have one and only one big ISP in Morocco. All local and international people making business in Morocco have IP connection from IAM. You were simply blind.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two independent reviews on your case, based on behavioral evidence and from technical investigation showed that you were indeed using multiple accounts without the shadow of a doubt. I have seen Checkuser being wrong, but it is very unlikely it is the case today. You'd better come clean and may this serve as a warning. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand this because I guess I have one IP address during the day from my workplace and another one in the evening from home. I really have no idea about these two IP addresses. In Morocco, many Internet users can have the same IP if they are connected to the same ISP provider. If you made your conclusion on IPs, you are wrong. Please do compare the style of each of the editors, you will see by yourself that we have different style of writing and expressing. Anyway, I will keep my comments on my user page.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

95% of consensus thanks to Orange Tuesday

I do agree with the proposal of Orange Tuesday regarding the presentation of Western Sahara in the new list of countries. I have two little remarks : the first one is related to the claming entity which is Polisario Front and not "SADR" as mentionned in UN resolutions. Then the territory controlled by "SADR" isn't precised in UN resolutions. In the buffer zone, all activities are under Minurso control. I will say it differently : as there is no international recognition on the "moroccanity" of Western Sahara, I wonder how could the international community recognizes the "polisarity" of Western Sahara or part of it? It doesn't make sense to mention the control of Morocco neither Polisario Front. It's more about an effective adminstrative power.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS:Please do read the following page on the monitoring of the ceasefire by Minurso

http://www.minurso.unlb.org/monitoring.html

The moroccan army and the Polisario Front militaries have no right to make incursion inside the restricted area according to the ceasefire agreement. That means the Minurso is supposed to have the total control of the territory.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Sorry but I am just making very little updates. Do I need to discuss before making these updates? Thanks. Sorry again !--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]