User talk:Zeblade12

March 2024

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Tiznit, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Skitash, sock of whom? Drmies (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@H0x7c00. Skitash (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im not the user you mentioned, i'm a new member and i came here after I saw that the berber names of those cities were erased. Zeblade12 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies This account was created as soon as I reverted H0x7c00's edits. The two are making identical edits and this particular user is currently engaging in an edit war on my own talk page. Skitash (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash Again, i am not the user that you mentioned. I would also like to add that you keep on deleting my messages even when i just want to talk. How am i supposed to communicate with you if you just delete everyone of my messages ? Zeblade12 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeblade12, if they don't want you on their talk page, you have to respect that. It works both ways of course: you can tell them the same thing. User:Skitash, there is no technical evidence of any socking.

Let me suggest that you (two, three) hash this out on the talk page, but let me add that FORLANG is about the title, not about what's in the lead--and Arabic is as native or foreign as Tifinagh in that part of the world. Again, though, this should be discussed on the talk page, or maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco. Good luck to all of you, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that, I simply didn't know where to ask,on their page or on mine. I deleted my post on their page.

Zeblade12 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems that this account had been created with a single purpose; to disruptively inject original research into every Morocco-related article as possible. This edit just suggests that the user did not bother reading any of my edit summaries but continued to make their own edits with nonsensical edit summaries. Skitash (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Hello again and sorry to bother you but I have added back the Tifinagh names on many pages of Moroccan cities and @Skitash keeps on deleting them telling that there is "no original research". This is vandalism. Amazigh written in Tifinagh letters is a native langage of Morocco and deserves to be shown just as much as Arabic. Also, @Skitash still does not want to talk about why they want so much to erase Tifinagh script. You said that FORLANG was just about the title yet @Skitash keep inventing excuses just to pursue what I see is an agenda. Zeblade12 (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Berber languages are diverse and not a single unified language, making them difficult to verify. Therefore, it's essential to cite sources. @Snowstormfigorion concurs (whom you also reverted). Since you're clearly unfamiliar with the no original research policy, I suggest you read WP:NOR. Skitash (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, and what are you erasing exactly ? Yeah right, not Amazigh, but Tifinagh. Just as stupid as saying "Oh yeah but Latin langages are diverse and not a single unified langage" well duh ofc. That is still not a valid reason to erase them (and since you want some proof, may I refer you to the Moroccan Constitution which I think is enough proof that Tifinagh script which is used to write down Amazigh( since you seem to know nothing about Amazigh langages and culture)is part of Moroccan identity and deserves to be shown). Stop deleting these names. Zeblade12 (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have not read the article I linked, so I will clarify the guideline here. You may not publish facts, allegations, and ideas without reliable, published sources to support them. The Moroccan constitution doesn't support the various WP:OR names you're eager to inject to different articles. Skitash (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Moroccan Constitution which clearly indicates that BOTH Arabic and Amazigh are official langages of Morocco not relevant here . I suggest you stop being so condescending about subjects you clearly know nothing about. Zeblade12 (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies The user appears either to be pretending not to grasp the rule or is blatantly disregarding it. They don't seem to understand that all edits require sources. They are now continuing to edit war and make disruptive edits. I am done trying to discuss with this single-purpose account. Skitash (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is the Moroccan Constitution not a valid source ? I'm not trying to add an unsupported fact to these articles but only their names in the official langage of the country they're in, that's it. Zeblade12 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash, I think you're pushing the point. Morocco doesn't (officially) oppress Tamazight anymore, and I assume the same applies to the script. The whole "citing sources" thing for the name in another language than Arabic--that's a struggle that I don't think you can win, nor should you. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about suppression; it's about ensuring accuracy and reliability. The text being added lacks proper sourcing and falls under WP:OR. Obviously, there are multiple Berber languages that are mutually unintelligible to each other, with Standard Moroccan Amazigh being the official Berber language in Morocco. However, this user is attempting to add Tachelhit text to articles, a Berber language that is neither an official language nor sourced for verifiability, rather than the official Standard Moroccan Amazigh. They've also inserted vague "Berber languages" text into the Casablanca article without specifying which Berber language it represents. Several other editors have also raised concerns about this issue, but this user doesn't seem to grasp the problem. Skitash (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the langages are not totally mutually intelligible, the name of the cities are the same, just look on the official websites of the various towns you keep on arabising without any serious grounds. Berber languages do refer to Amazigh (as in Standard Moroccan Amazigh) and any failure to recognize that implies either a serious lack of knowledge on your part or a deliberate attack on one of Amazigh langage's weakness which is that it's a langage mostly transmitted through speaking only. The Tifinagh script used is however the correct spelling of those names in all Amazigh langage, whether it is Shilha (or Tachelhit as it is written in French) or Riffian for example. If you knew anything about Morocco's history, you would know that having the names written down in this script holds significant importance to us as it shows our culture has not been completely erased despite decades of efforts by previous moroccan governments.

Here is an extract of article 5 of the Moroccan Constituion :

"Arabic is [demeure] the official language of the State.

The State works for the protection and for the development of the Arabic language, as well as the promotion of its use.

Likewise, Tamazight [Berber/amazighe] constitutes an official language of the State, being common patrimony of all Moroccans without exception. "

Silencing variations of langages on the basis that they're not "standard" is a serious misunderstanding of this.

And for another source, here is the website of Agadir, you can clearly see in the logo that Tifinagh letters are used to write down Agadir, along with latin and arabic script.

https://agadir.ma/en/

I'll also finish by saying that if you want so much to ensure " accuracy and reliability", just include the names in Standard Amazigh then (for example "ⴰⴳⴰⴷⵉⵔ" for "Agadir") (which I'll remind you once again is the exact same name in all variations of Amazigh) Zeblade12 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeblade, I kind of need you to stop edit warring and slinging insults. Conversely, User:Skitash, don't revert. We need to come with a solution here. Right now I could block both of you for edit warring, and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. Tifinagh, per Berber orthography, seems like a valid choice to me but I'm not an expert, and my opinion doesn't really matter. This needs to be taken up in a larger forum than this talk page: see Talk:Tifinagh for the relevant project.

What I think one of you should do is post, concisely and neutrally, on one of those project talk pages, and post notifications of that discussion on the other project talk pages. That is the way forward. Skitash, you were pointing at Wikipedia rules for languages/scripts (BTW I sense a confusion in some of the edits and comments), so the MOS is relevant here as well. Continuing with reverting each other and making accusations will lead to blocks and, Zeblade, "stop erasing native content" is NOT a good idea to put in an edit summary: do not make this personal please. I can put warning templates on y'all's talk pages but I don't want to do that so I will just say this: stop reverting, starting now, and stop making personal attacks, OK? We need to come to a real solution, and I'm sure we can. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Drmies, just quick thanks for being involved in this. It is true that whatever variant or dialect is used in writing on nouns/ names is irrelevant here since it's the same all over. "ⴰⴳⴰⴷⵉⵔ" for "Agadir" is the same everywhere, linguistically and phonetically. Official website for Agadir shows the same case. (https://agadir.ma/en/)

The user Skitash has edited out the Tifiniagh writing which was originally in the article with no valid reason. He also assumed that the other user is me, which is just not true and I don't need another account for this because my goal is to fix the harm that's done and to get the reasoning behind it, not to add more harm. I appreciate the work that's being put into Wikipedia and I will always will, and that's why it's important to fight against vandalism.

There are other articles which also have had the Tifinagh removed (Taroudant, Tiznit, and so one) by the same user, and I will try to bring it back and I wish the same user doesn't revert it.

Thanks once more. H0x7c00 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, this new account above (H0x7c00) presents some concerns over sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

That being said, I've left a comment about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco; I suggest we move discussion about Tifinagh (as opposed to about editor behaviour) there. R Prazeres (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (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. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]