User talk:Mato/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

0102Archive 0304050607

I know this happened a long time ago, but hey!

This is not vandalism, and rollback should be used only to revert vandalism. Please don't do this again, thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi there. If you look at the previous edit I reverted by this user (the one before the one you linked), you can see that the only edit they made to the page was to change a date, however the edit summary they left read "add link" (see the edit [1]). I made the judgement that by providing a completely unrelated edit summary, the user was trying to deliberately introduce factual errors into the article, which constitutes vandalism. I therefore did not think twice about reverting the edit you linked - they once again changed the date in the article and appeared to be masking this with their edit summary. I concede that it would have been wiser, in this situation, to add a more specific edit summary, however I don't think I am in the wrong here. Mato (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


You reverted a 100% verified news reported today in ALL MEDIA . I will report you for your vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • This is an ongoing and controversial current event. If you are adding an outright fact like this to an article, you should cite your sources, or it will be disputed. Mato (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC),

There is no controversy and no dubious source, other than your ignorance. You better learn how to do your job, instead vandalising Wikipedia and slandering Wikipedia users. You are probably the only people in this planet not to have noticed Kufra fell to Ghadafi forces today, as it is stated in the article already.

  • Perhaps you should re-read the warning message I left on your page. I have not slandered you, nor any other Wikipedia user and I certainly haven't vandalised. Mato (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


An obvious case of conflict of interests. (Just look at his edit history - that's even besides his username.) -- (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Well unless you request help with the edit war or simply stop editing, you'll both end up being banned for violating WP:3RR. Mato (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
What? The dude is repeatedly vandalising (removing well-referenced content, just because he don't like it), and fighting vandalism by the guy clearly engaged in conflict in interest (did you see his edits? ONLY Rockstar games and especially MP3, for YEARS now) is now ANYTHING bad at all? -- (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it constitutes "obvious vandalism" is debatable, so WP:3RR still applies and it's best to report the conflict of interest at WP:COIN. Mato (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
So maybe you do it, as you obviously know so much about it, AND you're interested in the case. And what exactly is "debatable" here?? -- (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't claim to know "so much about it", or be "interested in the case". I was offering my advice for you to take or leave. Mato (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for this useful link. I agree: talking would be way better. But this contributor keeps editing the same defamatory material using either his IP address or different contributor ids--and refuses to engage in a constructive talk. What should I do? Dilatlahrat (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

The material used is an original op-ed by the journalist in question (in french) and unfortunately for Benchemsi by far, not his best. Not a reason for A-censoring other contributors and B-misrepresenting (lying about?) the nature of the change.


GR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghita.rachdi (talkcontribs) 16:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi there!

Thank you for your feedback! I am just trying to stop one editor from removing a section about Benchemsi (the subject of the page) condoning the usage of torture. The section is properly referenced and linked to the orginal article (in french though) at

Is there anything that can be done? The article as it appears now is obviously biased (although I understand that Benchemsi or some of his friends) dislike being linked to torture).

Thank you for any advice you may share!


GR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghita.rachdi (talkcontribs) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


I appreciate your involvement in this. The contributor(s) who keep(s) adding this torture section, under different IPs/IDs, is (are) clearly biased and has (have) obviously harmful intentions.

Benchemsi, who received international awards for advocating democracy and human rights (,, never condoned the usage of torture.

In the referenced editorial, he wrote that he would never support the methods of Laanigri (the then Moroccan police chief, widely known as the top responsible for torture), but that in 20 years, there may be a debate between the supporters of the regime and its opponents, on whether torture would have prevented (or not) the expansion of terrorism. I agree that this was neither the best, nor the most inspired of his editorials. Yet it featured a debate, not the writer's opinion.

Benchemsi's opinion on torture (broadly: not only is it condemnable, but it is ridiculously inefficient to stop terrorism) is here: Under Benchemsi's direction, TelQuel magazine published many cover stories on human rights organizations' reports revealing/condemning the use of torture in Moroccan secret prisons (like this one:

More recently, Benchemsi exposed cases of Moroccan citizens tortured to death in Police stations (here: and deplored the authorities' silence on this tragedy. Benchemsi's defunct Arabic magazine Nichane ( named the torturers and asked for their trial--which no other Moroccan newspaper did.

I am not Benchemsi, and I have neither time nor willingness to write his proper, comprehensive biography. But I hate injustice. Benchemsi was forced into exile by Morocco's authorities because of his courageous journalistic support of democracy. Trashing him (or anybody) with slander is despicable.


Dilatlahrat (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for torture.

Hi there!

I also appreciate your involvement in this. The previous user has been constantly removing a section linking Benchemsi to one of his op-eds ( without any sort of justification. Now, contrary to what has been said above this is not a matter of interpretation. I am simply translating an excerpt from the op-ed in question where he states that "In 10, 20, or 30 years, we will be able to ask ourselves whether these acts (of torture) may have finally been a necessary evil" (and here is the original version in french under the previous link "dans 10, 20 ou 30 ans, nous serons en situation de nous demander si ces actes n’auront pas été, finalement, un mal nécessaire").

Anyone on Wikipedia may attempt to clarify an article if they deem it necessary but I fail to see how adding an original citation is biased or open to interpretation. On the contrary attempting to hide the truth from wikipedia users is malicious while condoning torture (now or in "in 10 years) is simply unacceptable.

Again, I am grateful that someone is intervening on this and hope we may reach some sort of consensus that would give Wikipedia's readers the most accurate picture of Mr. Benchemsi's work and opinions.

Best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Interesting controversy.

"We will be able to ask ourselves whether..." ("nous serons en situation de nous demander si…") precisely means that this is a question, rather than the affirmation of an opinion. This question is indeed troubling, but it deserves to be put in perspective with other writings of the same author, for a better understanding of his opinions.

Let me say again (and I would appreciate that you respond to this, instead of ignoring it) that Benchemsi published his precise opinion on torture, along with many other editorials and journalistic pieces--all of which are referenced in my previous post and clearly demonstrate where he stands on this matter.

Let me propose something: I will edit the torture section instead of removing it, providing new weblinks as references for a more insightful perspective on Benchemsi's work and opinions. If my edits are removed without justification by the users who keep running the original torture section, will you agree that they are the ones malicious, and will you help me oppose them for the sake of Wikipedia's accuracy?


Dilatlahrat (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Done. Now please watch.

Dilatlahrat (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems that we have reached a consensus. Now do you want to update the french section or do you want me to do it?


GR (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)ghita.rachdi

I can do it (maintenant que je suis lancé…) Thanks.


Dilatlahrat (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Good to see you appear to have sorted things out. Mato (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Edit Warning

Hi Mato. You recently undid some changes I made to the Christian Lo Russo article but must have missed my reason for editing - "(Redirected as per notability guideline - Christian Lo Russo is not known other than being a member of some band)". There is also a consensus on the talk page of that article to have it redirect, and I am not the first to have done so. I you will not mind me undoing your undo. Cheers (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I didn't miss the reason. "Christian Lo Russo is not known other than being a member of some band" is not an explanation for a redirect, especially as the "some band" in question is notable. On the other hand I did however miss the talk page discussion, so my apologies. Feel free to revert my edit. Mato (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

UK Honours disambiguations pages

There was no bias in the edits that I made to the UK honours disambiguations pages, I only made those changes because they are important titles compared to others mentioned in the lists. Next time when you write up in the history edit page try not to insult others in your descriptions and by the way I am British and I know my English properly. Even if I was not British my edits would not biased. I am on a university network so please do not write on the main page of the user page because many from my university use Wikipedia and regularly edit Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm aware that it is a shared IP address but it is the only appropriate way to contact you in this situation. If you don't wish messages to be left there you should create your own account. It isn't advised to single-handedly decide which are the most important titles in each list. I have also mentioned that your styling was incorrect. Look at CBE (disambiguation) for an example of how to style a disambiguation page with a primary use - note where bold and italics are used. If you've still decided that no-one would argue with your conclusion that they are the primary use of the abbreviation on each page, then feel free to revert my reverts. Mato (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian Lo Russo

You recently reverted a redirection of the page Christian Lo Russo, saying that there was no explanation of the deletion of the material. The redirection was explained in the edit summary of the IP editor you were reverting, and the redirection had been discussed and had no objection on the Talk page. I am uncertain where you may be looking for your explanations, but obviously those are both good places to check. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • If you look at the history of my talk page [2] you will see I have already had a discussion with the user in question. I questioned the wording of the edit summary but apologised for failing to look at the article's talk page prior to making the revert. Mato (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Just for your edification: the explanation he gave was proper - it may not have stated the name of the guideline being invoked, but that guideline (WP:NMUSIC) states "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What I posted is true on the 747. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IwillDESTROYthesus (talkcontribs) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • It is a trivial 'fact' that has no relevance. Even if it was relevant, it would need a source showing the calculations. Mato (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

SUL on fr

The username Mato has been freed for you. Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Merci beaucoup. Mato (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pie for you

  • Aw, how nice! Thank you, and no problem. Mato (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It was just unexpected. I had never been vandalized before. I just probably got on someone's bad side.illogicalpie 22:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what reverting vandalism does! I think you can expect it to happen many more times! Mato (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)