User talk:M.Bitton

This is M.Bitton's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 15 days

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

The Gold STiki Barnstar of Merit

Congratulations, M.Bitton! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 25,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hi, because of lack of time, i was not able to complete the article yesterday, thank you very much for taking the time to explain me how to use the Harv style and for completing (and correcting my mistakes) my edits at Medo-Babylonian conquest of the Assyrian Empire. Cheers. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: Thanks! Glad I could help. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	It’s always great to see more people fighting vandalism. Have a star! Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 23:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebcubed: Thank you so much for your encouragement. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I see that you check recent edits for appropriateness. I clicked through to see a set of the reversions that you had made for rejected submissions, and I agreed with all of what I saw you had done. It seemed apparent to me through the decisions you made and the comments that you left that you were giving human attention to the decisions you made rather than over-relying on tools and automation. Thanks for that, and thanks especially for the notes you leave. You are doing good review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your excellent job with creating the administrative maps of Albania! Ahmet Q. (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmet Q.: Thank you so much for your feedback. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For answering a lot of edit requests and helping to keep the backlog at bay. For a while, I was taking care of that on my own, and it feels nice to see someone else get to it first every now and then! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Actualcpscm: thank you very much for the encouragement and for tackling those time consuming edit requests that tend to be pushed to the back of the queue. Keep up the great work! Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your incredible work on the Horn of Africa relief map :)

		The Original Barnstar
		Here's a barnstar for your incredible work on the Horn of Africa relief map! Really appreciate the effort you put into it :) KluskaSlaska (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a related note, I would love to do some more map work once I have more time in late summer. Do you have any good guides on how to get started on maps for Wikipedia? :) KluskaSlaska (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KluskaSlaska: Thank you so much for your feedback. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any good guides that would help you. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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.
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.
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.
they also started Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_civility_issues.
they then modified the Wikipedia:Third opinion to suit whatever they're after today. How can they possibly justify this abuse of process?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I've had some way-forward advice, posted here and there, but worth mentioning here, too: [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Is it possible for you to actually respond to my message instead of deleting it right away? I've been respectful so far. Lefootop (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias

Hello

I believe that there may be a possible bias against Morocco that you have. First off, you keep on reverting edits in which we talk about Moroccan victories, even though there are clearly some sources provided. For example, in the austrian expedition to Morocco, you ban people who change the result to Moroccan victory with 6 sources (keyword: 6) to change it back to Austrian victory with 1 source.There is also the Soviet-Moroccan Naval expedition that you keep on deleting from the list of conflicts involving Morocco and the list of conflicts involving the Soviet Union. I would like it if you actually discussed your reverts in the talk pages instead of doing it directly.

Thank you

With all due respect

Lefootop Lefootop (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]