User talk:Owen5711

April 2024

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at History of Morocco, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the maps that you've been changing have been the subject of long discussions and consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By Algerians like yourself? Never ever contact me again. Owen5711 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at History of Algeria 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) 12:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you block one user only and not the other, funny how you block only one side of this supposed war. Owen5711 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. —Small jim 12:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you block one user only and not the other, funny how you block only one side of this supposed war. Owen5711 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your edits. Then, if reverted, discuss. —Small jim 12:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources of numerous "maps", they kept exaggerating Algerians Maps and dwarfing Moroccan maps, the maps I reverted too were already in the articles themselves, or in other versions of the article (french, arabic, spanish) and had sources that matches the actual content shown. Yet all changes were reverted by Algerians (even on Moroccan pages) and the best "reason" was this 'the maps that you've been changing have been the subject of long discussions and consensus.' which is fallacy since the sources given either don't exist anymore or show much more grounded maps.

They reverted my changes without justification on the Wikipedia and yet I am the only one getting blocked and they are allowed to roam free? Owen5711 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand my previous terse response: explain your edits when making them using the edit summary box. Then, if your edit is reverted, engage the other editor in discussion on the article talk page. See WP:BRD. —Small jim 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Argan oil

Please do not keep making these edits. There is clear consensus amongst other editors that those edits are disruptive. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page and get a consensus to change before making those edits again. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello k6ka,

I hope this message finds you well.

There is a clear bias and bullshit in Wikipedia, I have neither the time nor the energy to debate anymore, this will probably be my last message, but I'll provide some explanations for your.

Regarding the edit that I made in the english wiki, Scientific studies which are cited in the sources of the article itself, clearly states that the Tree is endemic to Morocco and a small portion of south western Algeria (Tindouf). The Maghreb includes Algeria, Mauritania, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco. Yet in Wikipedia, anything Moroccan is referred as Maghreb because a consensus of illiterate people with nationalistic tendencies decided so.

Regarding the guys I reported, it was a mistake from my part, I was looking on a way to report disruptive behavior on wikipedia by doing a google search, which sent me to the english page, I only found out later that there is a separate page for French pages.

Regarding the reports themselves.

I provided ample evidence (that you can simply check via history of edits) that the guys I reported are making disruptive changes by Wikipedia own definition such as:

Adding Algeria to the Moroccan inscription of Aragn in the UNESCO, you can easily check the source, yet they added it back 5 times canceling my edits and adding restrictions to the Article in order to stop me from editing it.

Deleting an entire sourced paragraph about oil fabrication in Morocco in the article about Argan Oil, and replacing it with the Tree geography, which, of course, includes Algeria.

Adding Algeria Portal to the article regarding Argane Oil out of nowhere, despite not having provided a single source about the supposed Argane Oil Fabrication in Algeria.

When I reverted the changes, they kept adding them back without providing sources to backup the claims or explanations as of why they deleted sourced paragraph.

When I report the users, I end up being banned directly because I am the one being disruptive. And you instantly jump on the bandwagon and confirm that I am disruptive.

I was also banned directly by a certain guy, without any discussion, warnings, or whatever, Hail Wikipedia?

Wikipedia should remove pedia from it name, pedia stands for encyclopedia, an encyclopedia should be based on scientific sources and scientific consensus.

I followed the rules, I did nothing wrong, I provided sources and backup for everything I did, I got banned.

The users I reported where the ones making the disruptive edits, they will keep doing them thanks to you and people like you. Owen5711 (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]