User talk:Logicalclassic

October 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Raïs Hamidou, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a reverting edit from this Logicalclassic (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

And this one Logicalclassic (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Raïs Hamidou, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Raïs Hamidou. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Check article's antecedents ? Logicalclassic (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Restoring an earlier revision of an article
Hi, first of all: Please don't. At least not at Raïs Hamidou today, as there have been objections to your edits there.

In general, please see Help:Reverting for details: You don't need to manually undo single contributions to restore an earlier revision of an article. Please use a desktop computer, not a mobile device, and read through Help:Reverting carefully. Take your time. Experiment at the WP:Sandbox before doing it in a live article.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why ? Check History of this article, someone has removed content without reason that i try to bring back. Logicalclassic (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a verifiability policy that says:
 * If you add content, you're responsible for providing a citation (WP:BURDEN)
 * If you add content, you're responsible for gaining consensus about its inclusion (WP:ONUS)
 * Noone needs to provide a reason other than "lacks sources" to remove such content. If you would like to restore it, your responsibility is to provide a reliable citation and not to re-add content against others' concerns.
 * Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (Oh, and please do use a desktop computer for this if anyhow possible. You'll notice that discussion with other users, and providing citations, is much easier with a keyboard and a mouse.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So why are you keeping that there is no reason.Logicalclassic (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple users have attempted to explain the reason above and below. You'll need to take the time to actually read their explanations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have understood but there is no reason to keep this no source edit passed Logicalclassic (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm prolonging the block to one month as it is clear that 31 hours won't be sufficient time to require you to read and comprehend the relevant policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Other people's edits aren't relevant to your block, only your own edits. But certainly, this edit includes what appears to be a reliable citation, one that adheres to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to write an appropriate unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Nevermind but i will remove this edit where is source Logicalclassic (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is clearly visible. You should not edit again, even once your block expires, if you are unable to find where this information is sourced from because it indicates you don't understand how the Wikipedia markup language works. In this case, the source is The Mariner's Mirror, volume 60, issue 2, published in 1974. --Yamla (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked and it doesn't talk about origin, i will bring several sources. Logicalclassic (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You changed the text from "Algerian corsair" to "Algerian privateer". The citation, which can be read here, it literally titled, "Raïs Hamidou: The last of the great Algerian corsairs" (emphasis mine). I make no claim about whether or not he was Kabyle. Frankly, I don't care and haven't looked. This is my last response to you. You are, of course, free to make a new unblock request and another admin will review it. --Yamla (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have understood and i had never changed "Algerian corsair" to "Algerian privateer", i restored "People from Boumerdes".
 * You can check article's history. Logicalclassic (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I give up, i did nothing wrong you can check history. Logicalclassic (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
--Askelaadden (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:Noname JR&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Noname JR. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)