User talk:BlueLight05

Edit warring (also via User:197.153.227.131
You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Algiers appears to be using deception to kill Anavad's audience and damage the reputation of Kabylia in order to cope with the diplomatic accomplishments of the Kabyle Provisional Administration. Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to usedsign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126/* Persistent personal attacks */ ;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring and addition of unsourced content
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. If you resume disruptive editing when this block expires, your next block will be for a longer duration.OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sentences like "Algiers appears to be using deception to kill Anavad's audience and damage the reputation of Kabylia in order to cope with the diplomatic accomplishments of the Kabyle Provisional Administration" are clearly not supported in that source. During your block, please take the time to read our policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point-of-view. You've already been warned extensively about edit-warring. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's written the same in the article, i just changed the wording without disrupting the report too much, again, i still think it's a misunderstanding. "Today, Algeria and Kabylia do not recognize each other: Kabylia considers itself to be colonized and part of the population wishes to exercise its right to self-determination. In order to deal with the diplomatic successes of the Kabyle Provisional Government, Algiers seems to be using manipulation to destroy Anavad’s audience and undermine the image of Kabylia" I clearly wasn't the one edit warring, as i repeatedly called M.Bitton to reach an agreement, he refused and game minimal explanation for his removals for the most part. The blanking he reported was a duplicate message from my part I tried to remove. I didn't know how the edit warring system work, so i didn't report him when he started reverting my edits. I could be wrong of course, but a better course of action would be to dispute my entries instead of trying to in a way to censor them. BlueLight05 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I left an explanation on the talk page that you ignored. Instead you chose to harass me and plaster my talk page with multiple notices at once, and that of course, is on top of the previous edit warring, the socking to continue the edit war and the personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I sent you two notices today and they were the only ones, I read your notice, and we talked about it in your talk page yesterday. As for harassment, i think you're purposefully dramatizing the situation, you're the one here accusing me of removing sources and sending edit warring notices even though, you're doing it yourself. I don't know you and i didn't "personally attack you". I just pointed out that what you're doing is deceptive, and i still think it is. BlueLight05 (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've made 3 reverts on my edits yesterday, not individually, you reverted everything. The reason you gave was that I removed sourced content. I explained to you that i simply changed the references that were books with a CIA document from CIA.gov referencing the same thing, you ignored it. I reverted to edit after some time, and you went on to do the same thing over and over with superficial and vague justifications. You're clearly biased, and removing an article about the Kabyle people is a clear example of it. Before you start jumping to conclusion i'm an Amazigh person living in Morocco and i added the section because i think it is something important that i think most people should read about. BlueLight05 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I sent you two notices today and they were the only ones. Not true..
 * i simply changed the references that were books with a CIA document from CIA.gov referencing the same thing. The edit in question that you made under IP, so that the others can see and judge for themselves.
 * i didn't "personally attack you". If suggesting that I am mentally impaired (your exact words) is not a personal attack, I don't know what is. I also notice that you personal attacks show no sign of abating. M.Bitton (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There's a duplicate here that i was trying to remove i didn't know how to remove it, and yes, that's my IP and wasn't trying to hide this fact. And yes I think those references should be removed because they're books and the people that wrote it were trying to push their own point of view(i'm uing your words).
 * I also think your a liar and you're hypocritical in your judgement this is a statement of fact.
 * This is from your Talk Page: With regard to this revert: 1. UNPO is not a reliable source. It's financed by its members to promote their POV. The fact that it's showing an incorrect map, giving a baseless area estimate and estimating the Kabyles at one third of the population should tell you something. 2. Wikipedia's content is based on encyclopedic content. That means, the editors are expected to familiarize themselves with WP:COPO and what Wikipedia is not. 3. The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. M.Bitton (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * So, according to your own logic, a book writen by a Spanish individual is more credible than an international organization that deals with Minorities? -> More proof that you're biased, and you're pushing your own point of view.
 * You wrongly stated that the map is wrong even though it's already present in this wikipedia article. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaouis
 * You also avoided mentioning the "With all my respects" because that would easily spoil your stawman, i clearly wasn't insulting you as much as letting you know what you've said is irrational.
 * I don't like getting pushed around, and i'm not going to let this go. BlueLight05 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you step in? Thank you. BlueLight05 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already given you advice below the block, which you don't seem to have followed. (You may want to add WP:NOTTHEM to your reading list). I'm not commenting any further. Another administrator can review your unblock your request. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to say i was the one who started to complain about other people, but, ok, I'll wait for another administrator or open a dispute because what's happening now is extremely unfair and horrendous. Regards. BlueLight05 (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Resumption of edit-warring and personal attacks
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the same policy "There may also be a requirement to discuss each reversion on the talk page, and sometimes the phrase "24-hour period" is replaced by some other time period, such as "one week" or "one month". The rule may be applied to either pages or editors." Which clearly didn't happen even for my previous revert, i discussed my reasons in all the reverts I've made and even summarized them in the Talk page going back to when I made edits with my IP. It's also outlined in the policy that "For purposes of interpretation and clarification, the rule does not apply retroactively; that is, if an editor has reverted in the past 24 hours before a 1RR has been applied, their first subsequent revert is not a violation. However, editors are encouraged to treat this as a very strong indication that it's time to talk instead of reverting. Gaming this rule will not be viewed as amusing." Regards, BlueLight05 (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can do all of that and still be edit-warring, especially when you return to a dispute and start casting aspersions immedately upon the expiration of your last block. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cite you one of the examples from the same policy you've referenced "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation.", which again is clearly the case, the editor in question used the "with all my respects, you have to be mentally impaired to confuse my point of view" repeatedly to sideline and attempt to stop the dispute I had with him, if you also check the same discussion [], I've made it clear that I wanted to reach an agreement with him without resorting to fights. Accusations and threatening someone with a ban instead of discussing the matter of the dispute is also against Wikipedia policies. Calling him an Algerian isn't derogatory in nature therefore not considered harassment. BlueLight05 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IDHT, you are failing to acknowledge the fundamental problems with the edit you keep reverting to; see my comments here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I literally took the text from the original article, used a paraphrasing script, checked if i missed anything and posted it. It was removed before i even had to chance to add other references or expand it. Literally every information in the original text is there. And no [] doesn't represent the Kabyle people specifically(They're not the only ones represented, nor they're the ones running the organization). BlueLight05 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)