User talk:Kurdish Elf



Hello, Kurdish Elf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Algeria. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't "personally attack" anyone. You seem to take criticism against your contributions very personally for some reason.
 * Rest assured, none of what was said in that discussion was a personal attack. Now, if you actually responded to my replies about my edit suggestions instead of dismissing them and crying foul, maybe we'd get somewhere. Kurdish Elf (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also ironic that you complain about "personal attacks" considering you told another user to "go find a new hobby" after they proposed an edit you disagreed with. Kurdish Elf (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Sonatrach, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I literally gave a valid reason for the edit, but of course, you chose to ignore it.
 * Can you stop harassing me? It's getting obsessive. Kurdish Elf (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sonatrach. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. M.Bitton (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Stop it, Bitton. I clearly explained my edit. You're the one who started the edit war by reverting a valid edit and are now acting like a child. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Kurdish Elf. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acting like a child is a clear-cut personal attack that I won't stand for. M.Bitton (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You literally told others to "find new hobbies" for having differing opinions. Do you not consider that a personal attack?
 * Stop harassing me. You dkeep ignoring every intellectual/on-topic argument in favour of copy/pasting rules that you think might have been broken (which they most often are not). It would be far more productive to respond to my suggestions on Talk:Algeria instead of spamming my page. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Algerian Air Force. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Llacb47 (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * I will not. I have a valid reason for them. Kurdish Elf (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Algerian Air Force. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Algerian_Air_Force&diff=next&oldid=1219777746 MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * How is that a personal attack? That person is literally following me around and harassing me without ever addressing my edit suggestions. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a question.
 * How am I supposed to reach consensus when every time I make an edit suggestion, I have the same two users hounding me and relentlessly shutting down or dismissing any suggestion I make without even justifying themselves? It's almost like this consensus thing is just a facade to maintain the status quo. Genuine question. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to disagree with you, and that is not 'following you around' or 'harassing' you. Accusing people of harassment with no basis, though, is a personal attack and will get you blocked sooner or later. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's always the same two people though. And they literally shut down every edit suggestion I make without actually justifying their point of view, which is why I am saying they are "harassing me". There's the basis.
 * Wouldn't your passive aggressiveness and constant threats of blocking me also be considered "personal attacks" though? Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to a warning about personal attacks with more personal attacks is an interesting approach, but one that generally does not improve outcomes. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So more passive aggressiveness instead of addressing my genuine question. Got it. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Warning: stop your personal attacks immediately
Stop your personal attacks against editors at the Talk:Algeria page, and on this page, immediately. WP:CIVILITY is a behavior guideline for editors, and a repeated pattern of violations may risk suspension of your editing privileges. Further attacks against M.Bitton (or against any other editor) will result in final warnings, or a block. The time to change course is now. You may consider this a last chance. Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What about him telling others to find new hobbies for disagreeing with him? Not to mention his passive aggressiveness and dismissal of valid sources that led to this in the first place? Kurdish Elf (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Worry about your own behavior, not his; there are other venues for that. Your whataboutism deflection does not change the fact that you may not engage in personal attacks against other editors, full stop. A continued pattern of attacks is a quick way to get yourself blocked. Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. I will rectify this, but something genuinely needs to be done about passive aggressiveness and other personal attacks from other users on the Algeria talk page. Kurdish Elf (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree. If you feel you have been attacked (please read WP:NPA first) that is not right either; there are methods to deal with that. The place to start a complaint about perceived attacks is at the user talk page of the person you believe is responsible. Even if you feel wronged, you need to marshal all your forces to keep your explanation neutral: explain the situation to the user in as calm and neutral terminology as your are able; imagine for a moment, if you like, that you are a disinterested third party who saw what happened, and they are reporting it, not you; use their words, not the words that come to mind from your feelings of hurt, or anger. Lay out your complaint politely, and most importantly, in your explanation do not attack the person whose behavior you are calling into question—that would completely undermine your explanation and make it pointless. The user in question will very likely respond to you at their talk page. Hopefully, a resolution will be forthcoming from discussion there. But if not, there are ways to get more people involved who have no favor to one party or the other, to give additional input on this situation.
 * If you are not sure if something was an attack on you or not, and so you don't know if you should complain or not, you can get feedback from experienced editors who can look at the situation, and advise you. There are various ways to do this: you can ping a user you trust; you can go to a WP:WikiProject and ask there; you can go to the Help desk and many people will see your question there. I am involved, and have already criticized your previous behavior on this page so I am perhaps not the most neutral person to ask about the specific case we are talking about, but if you did ask me, I would give you my honest answer, and I would be happy to help you in the future if you have questions unrelated to this where I am not involved.
 * You seem to be a passionate editor, and Wikipedia needs good editors. I don't want to see you blocked, I want you to become a productive contributor, and I think you can be. This has been a bit of a rough start, and I understand your passion; now we just need to channel that passion into a collaborative effort to improve articles at Wikipedia. And I am also hoping that you branch out into other areas; why not update the article on the Yutu-2 Chinese moon rover, or the Remensa wars, or anything of interest to you? I hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs about the position of French in Algeria
Your, which constitute all of your contributions since you joined on 28 March, appear to involve primarily or solely of the removal of French names from Algerian articles, such as at Algerian Civil War, where this edit of yours removed the French term La décennie noire from the lead sentence. This edit has been undone. In fact, *English sources* commonly refer to this French term, as the citations in the lead amply demonstrate.&#91;16&#93; Some of your other recent edit summaries include the follwing: In addition, some of your edits at Talk:Algeria make truly bizarre assertions about the status of French language in Algeria. You made statements like: which are not only false, they are false to a ridiculous extreme: in reality, Algeria has 15 million French speakers, or one third of the population, more than Quebec, more than any other country in the world except France.
 * diff – Algerian People's National Army ‎ Removed the French name for the Algerian navy. No reason to include a French translation on an English-language article. current rollback: 1 editthank
 * diff –  Talk:Flag of Algeria ‎ summary: ‎French language
 * diff –  Talk:Algeria ‎ summary: ‎Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024
 * diff – Talk:Sonatrach ‎ summary: ‎Remove French name of the company from the article
 * diff –  Talk:Sonatrach ‎ summary: ‎Remove French name of the company from the article
 * diff –  Algerian Civil War ‎ Removed the French name for the war as French had no official status in the country during the war.
 * diff – isn't even widely used in the country. Please remove this to prevent readers from thinking French has any significance in Algeria.
 * diff – French is not widely spoken in Algeria.
 * diff – [French] is a colonial language that hasn’t had any importance since 1962.
 * diff – Also, French is NOT widely spoken in Algeria.

The totality of your edits would seem to indicate that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to advocate for your personal opinions and to right great wrongs regarding the position of the French language in Algeria. Mathglot (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Stop it. You should go to Algeria and read about the linguistic climate of the country. You're repeating Francophonie numbers, which are wildly inaccurate. Not to mention that these numbers make zero distinction between ESL, ETL and native speakers, of which there are almost none in Algeria. Nearly everyone who has knowledge of French is an ESL or ETL speaker.
 * Also, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has more French speakers than both Algeria and even France itself. So you're wrong about that too.
 * Finally, I am allowed to edit as long as I get consensus. French has no place in an English-language article about an Arabic-speaking country and I will keep editing and following the rules to make articles more accurately reflect reality. Thank you. Kurdish Elf (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are a brand new user, and you have the right to make mistakes, as we all do, but Wikipedia operates on a set of policies and guidelines that govern both the content of articles, and the manner of interacting with fellow editors, and if mistakes are pointed out to you, then you should learn from them and not repeat them. Failing to do so and repeating previous behavior after having the relevant policy explained to you will result in warnings on your Talk page of increasing severity, and/or may result in suspension of your editing privileges.
 * Your personal opinion about going to Algeria has nothing to do with how we edit articles here, what counts is what the majority of reliable sources have to say. Also, your idea of consensus is based on a kernel of truth, but misses an important distinction that is leading you astray: yes, content of our articles is governed to an extent by consensus achieved among editors, however Neutral point of view is core policy and cannot be overridden by consensus, full stop. So no matter how many people you bring to the Algeria article to support your Talk page claim that "French is not widely spoken in Algeria" it won't matter, because NPOV requires that we remain neutral on that question and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are very clear about the widespread use of French in Algeria. So the one who should stop it is you, and you should stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion at Talk:Algeria and making unsubstantiated claims.
 * Your anti-French campaign is not going to succeed here, and I suggest you pay attention to WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, and reliable sources, because if you continue this campaign you will end up blocked from editing Wikipedia. That said, you are still new here, and it's not too late to get the message and contribute here positively. I sincerely hope you do. Best wishes, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with how we edit, but it has to do with how wrong you really are about this topic. Your passive aggressiveness will not work. Even if the the 15 million number was to be trusted, people do not speak French in daily life in Algeria. French can therefore not be described as being "widely spoken" because Arabic and Tamazigh are how the native population communicates with each other. And that is factual, no matter what the "Organisation internationale de la Francophonie" (a literal neocolonial institution) tries to tell you.
 * I also want to make it very clear that this is absolutely not an "anti-French" campaign. I never removed French from articles where its presence actually makes sense (French Algeria and Algerian War articles for example). The reality is that French has no place in English-language articles about governments that do not operate in French or have French as an official language.
 * How would you feel about translating every major element in the United States article to Spanish since about 50 million Americans speak Spanish (native and second language speakers)? It wouldn't make sense there and doesn't make sense here. Let's keep a certain level of consistent across country articles. Kurdish Elf (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you missed the point that French is not listed in the Infobox under local languages, or under official languages, but under foreign languages. I'm pretty sure if you realized that, you would not argue for its removal. Clearly French is a foreign language, and there is no question that is the #1 foreign language.
 * I don't understand your comment about translating the US article into Spanish; es-wiki already has Estados Unidos. If you meant that the en-wiki United States article should have a section on foreign languages in the Infobox, I could probably support you on that if you want to propose it. There might be pushback or difficulties, based on either the fact that the Infobox is so big already, or that once you open it up to Spanish, you have dozens of languages that could go there, starting with natively spoken U.S. languages (Indian languages) which number around 300. After that, when we get to the foreign languages section, obviously Spanish, but due to the U.S. being such an enormous melting pot there are hundreds of foreign languages (though none spoken by 1/3 of the population, as in Algeria; rough numbers: es=41 million, zn=3.5, tl=1.7, vi=1.5, fr=1.2, ar=1, hi=0.9); even #1 Spanish amounts to only 1/7 of the population. So I think one of those reasons or both of them might be why there isn't a language section there (not even English!) because once you start, where does it end? Different groups would be fighting for their favorite language and putting one language in there would probably cause all hell to break loose. If you want to propose adding that to United States, ping me to the talk page, and I'll see what I can do to help you, but I'm not optimistic about it gaining consensus. But you never know, until you try. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I meant including Spanish in the English-language United States article for the name of the country itself. The Algeria article itself is full of French translations for city and place names: https://imgur.com/0uz4auQ
 * Your argument is very weak and the fact that you don't agree with applying the same logic to other country articles says everything about your position. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If it is not an anti-French campaign, then what accounts for these three edits? Your common edit summary: ''Removed French names. Not reason to have them for an English language article on an Arabic-speaking country.'' applies to all of them: All three were reverted by another editor. Sure seems like your campaign is continuing, after having been already warned about it. This is starting to become WP:DISRUPTIVE. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * rev. 1216745987 at Algerian Air Force – reverted; see https://www.mdn.dz/site_cfa/accueil_fr.php
 * rev. 1216745859 at Territorial Air Defence Forces – reverted; see https://www.mdn.dz/site_cfdat/accueil_fr.php
 * rev. 1216745496 Republican Guard (Algeria) – reverted; see https://www.mdn.dz/site_cgr/accueil_fr.php


 * There is literally zero reason to include French names in English-language articles for the military of an Arabic-speaking country. Zero.
 * Like I said, this is not an anti-French campaign, because you'll see that I actually agree with leaving French in articles where it makes sense (French Algeria, French-Algerian War, etc.). Shall I remind you that we're an the English version of Wikipedia?
 * I will keep making edits when I see fit. Thank you. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In the past, I had a disagreement with another editor about non-English words in the infobox, which escalated to ANI. The responding admin at the time stated the following statement that I believe applies here as well.
 * If, for example, the entire infobox was written in Arabic, this would be wrong. This is English Wikipedia; the bare bones of the article must rest on English. However, this doesn't mean that only English is allowed to be present. The bare bones of the article must be English, but we can provide foreign-language terminology to present an article's subject. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This logic is flawed, because you're opening the door to including every language under the sun in every English article. French does not belong in articles about a country that is not French-speaking and does not even recognize French as an official language. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at articles related to Algeria
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Algerian Air Force, Republican Guard (Algeria), and Territorial Air Defence Forces. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Don't care. I discussed it on the talk page and was ignored, so I will make edits as I see fit. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please note that failure to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including the policy on edit warring, may suggest a lack of commitment to building the encyclopedia. Persistent violations may result in being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I. Don't. Care.
 * I repeatedly justified my edits yet was completely ignored on the talk pages of those articles. Edit-warring is a two-way street, go spam the talk pages of the people reverting my edits. Kurdish Elf (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, collaborating with other editors and achieving Consensus is a matter of policy, which you can achieve through discussion with other editors, and through various methods of dispute resolution. What you cannot do, is simply go your own way, and overrule every other editor simply because of a conviction that you are right, and as everybody else has failed to get the point that you have elucidated so well on the talk page, they must all be wrong and therefore you can just continue on your merry way. Wikipedia does not work like that. Please self-revert your latest edit to Republican Guard (Algeria), where you have overruled three other editors opposed to your preferred content at that article. That is the very definition of edit-warring, and you have been warned about this numerous times already on this page. Please stop. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You stop. I repeatedly told you that I discussed those edits and was ignored. No one but you is backing those reverts.
 * Do you actually contribute or do anything pertinent on wikipedia or are you solely here to spam people's talk pages when you disagree with them? Kurdish Elf (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You do not have consensus for your edit at Republican Guard (Algeria). This is the fourth time you have readded this content in the last two weeks, and contrary to your assertion, your edits have been reverted by three editors. Your edits are starting to be WP:DISRUPTIVE, and if you continue this pattern of editing behavior, you risk a suspension of your editing privileges, or possibly a ban from topics related to Algeria. Please undo your last edit at Republican Guard (Algeria) until you have consensus for it. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you actually contribute or do anything pertinent on wikipedia or are you solely here to spam people's talk pages when you disagree with them? Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusing to accept that the edit warring policy does not apply to you. 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:. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If your response to warnings about edit warring continues to be "I don't care", then you may not edit here. Do not create another account or edit without logging in; you, the person, are blocked, not just this account.  Removing French-language related stuff is a rare enough phenomenon that WP will just block any new account or IP doing so.  FYI, I did not block you for personal attacks, because a couple of your "opponents" are snarking too.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true; on review, they're dialed up to a 6, and you're dialed up to an 11. They should stop, but you're making worse personal attacks AND edit warring.  So, a reviewing admin can do whatever they want, but I'd suggest they insist you agree to knock that off, too. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one more thing. I do not want to appear to be lumping Mathglot in with the group I think is being rude; AFAIK, they have not done so. My previous comments could have been interpreted as "everyone disagreeing with you is also being rude". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize and I recognize that the edit warring policy also applies to me. I was not trying to edit war, I was genuinely trying to make these articles I am passionate about better. I will seek consensus from now on. Thank you and sorry again for my behaviour. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So how would you feel about an agreement that, if you make another personal attack, or you edit war once more, you're blocked for 3 months with no unblock before then? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this offer. I am very sorry and I promise I won't do it again. I am new to wikipedia and am still trying to learn, but I learned my lesson. Thank you for being so understanding. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I have unblocked. Here is the wording of the unblock, so we're all on the same page: "User has agreed to stop making personal attacks, edit warring, and making edits that do not have consensus. ONE bold edit won't count, as long as this is not abused.  If they violate this agreement, I recommend (per their agreement) that they be blocked indef, with no possibility of unblock for 3 months."
 * This isn't a get out of jail free card; it doesn't mean you can be obstinate in the face of consensus against you, or just say blatantly untrue things. But the issues above seem to be the major obstacles to becoming a better editor.
 * Please let me know if people continue to make personal attacks against you. And others, please let me know if KE violates this agreement. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you again for your guidance, it is appreciated. I will do my best to become a better editor. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Unwarranted PA claim at Talk:Algeria
I have already responded to the content-based portion of your comment made from your IP account while not logged in at Talk:Algeria. (If that was not you, please state so.) This message is about the following portion of your comment:

As I mentioned there, that is a straw man as nobody made any such claim about religious beliefs. But more seriously, no reasonable person could interpret any previous message in that thread as being a personal attack, so your comment is baseless. Your unwarranted claim of PA by another editor at that thread either against you, or against Algerians may itself be considered a personal attack (see bullet #6).

The article talk page is not to be used to make insinuations about the editing behavior of other users. If you sincerely believe that another editor made a personal attack, you may raise the issue on their Talk page, *with evidence*. On the article talk page, please stick to discussion about how to improve the article. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are using multiple accounts
Are you using multiple accounts at Wikipedia? I noticed comments at Talk:Algeria by IP users and  and they make points very similar to yours using similar language. Perhaps that is coincidental, but I find the denial of identity in 105...199's latest comment unconvincing. Be that as it may, at one level it doesn't matter, with respect to not making any personal attacks as described in the section above.

However just in case, before you dig yourself any deeper, I should tell you that although having multiple accounts for legitimate reasons is allowed, using multiple accounts for illegitimate reasons is known as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and is prohibited. One illegitimate reason is to give the appearance of more support at a discussion than is warranted. Doing that may attract the attention of admins who have the power to request a checkuser operation in order to investigate possible concerns about prohibited activity and that can link up suspected IP accounts with other accounts. So, if you are doing any of that, please stop immediately and report your alternate accounts on your user page User:Kurdish Elf, and on the user pages of any other accounts you are using, whether registered (named) accounts, or anonymous (IP) accounts. You may use one of these User boxes or template User alternative account for this purpose.

If you made any of those IP-signed comments yourself while not logged in to your registered account because you forgot, that is no problem: just state below that the comments at Talk:Algeria signed with those IP addresses are your comments, and it will be fine. And if you didn't, then you can ignore this. (And don't forget to log in when you edit Wikipedia.) Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)