User talk:Blazing73

April 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hammadid dynasty. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Skitash (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash I am not involved in any edit war. On the contrary, I called on Descartes16 to discuss the issue on the Talk page, but he continued to edit the article. Blazing73 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Miknasa, 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. Skitash (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash I await your responses on the discussion pages as you have not provided any clear justifications for removing the edit. Blazing73 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read my edit summaries. Skitash (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash Even in summarizing your amendments you did not provide any clear justifications as you refused any discussion on the subject in Talk page Blazing73 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the link already left here regarding edit warring, I would recommend you read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, because if you continue forcing your changes through without consensus, you will be blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback Skitash refused to discuss on the talk page. Blazing73 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less. This doesn't excuse your actions. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback So what's the point of editing Wikipedia if someone is preventing you from doing so and doesn't even want to discuss it? Blazing73 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You have to learn to work with others. It looks like you are finally doing so on the talk page. In the future, there are many forms of dispute resolution available. Edit warring is not one of them. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maghrawa. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Skitash (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2025 (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 believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your claim to the contrary, this is indeed a continuation of your edit warring. You were doing so well with your discussion on the talk page, why did you suddenly decide to throw it out the window and make the change without consensus? The next time you do this, your block will be longer. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback This person does not want to agree on the subject. I gave him three sources, but he ignores them and tells me to send the book via email, even though he does not have this feature. I gave him another source that mentions the page so that he can verify it, But he refused, justifying that he wanted to see the sources on which the author of the book relied.

Go give these warnings to those who really deserve them, he is only rejecting sources for personal gain Blazing73 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, I couldn't care less. This doesn't excuse your actions. As to the answer to the rest of your response, please go re-read everything else that was told to you on this very talk page about how and why you have to deal with this. If you can't figure that out, then maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback You really need to re-read what I sent you in my message above. Blazing73 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you need to stop with the unsubstantiated accusations. Doing so is considered a personal attack. You have said absolutely nothing that deserves a re-read. You keep focusing on what other editors do or do not do, which again, does not excuse your behavior. I'm not going to continue to go back and forth with you on this. You were edit warring, plain and simple, all because things weren't going the way you think they should. Finally, they do have email enabled (see here:Special:EmailUser/Riad Salih). Unless you quickly learn from this and change your behavior, I feel your time here is limited. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback First of all, I am not facing personal accusations and stop making false accusations. I am only criticizing his behavior and work. Second, I went to his email that I sent and there is nothing because it is not activated and the page does not exist, Please stop the personal threats "WP:PA". Blazing73 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a threat; it's a warning that you need to change your behavior. However, you not listening to any advice given to you. Are you actually trying to tell me that the email link I put above doesn't work? Finally, please stop pinging me with every reply. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback Obviously the quotes you put need to be read as you only know the title, Secondly, you don't know what we are talking about and when the problem is explained you justify your behaviour by saying "couldn't care less.", Regarding the email, it really doesn't work, and I myself have an email. In fact, the person I was discussing with just wanted to see the text, but changed his mind, saying that he "wanted to see the book's sources."

Of course, if you read the "Talk" page, you will know that, but your neutrality is non-existent. Blazing73 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done trying to get through to you, so no need to reply. I'm functioning in admin-capcity only, so I don't give a shit what your arguments are for the inclusion of your text. You literally have not read or digested anything being told to you (including my simple request to stop pinging me). Just to be clear: your continued disruption will result in lengthier blocks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback No one forced you to respond. If you don't know how to solve problems, don't interfere and continue your work. Blazing73 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Please do not attack other editors "Admins", as you did at Talk:Marinid dynasty. 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) 17:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Marinid dynasty) for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Banning a user without any clear rational reason and without a proper investigation other than the opinion of another editor prevents others from editing. Blazing73 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not banned, you're blocked, and only partially. Jauerback, I feel that your prediction might come true soon. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Wow the editors who are supposed to be role models are threatening you, You need to read this more than ever. Blazing73 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blazing73, I would have called it edit warring, but someone could have wikilawyered that adding yet another tag is not formally a revert and thus doesn't continue an edit war. What you did there is disruptive and disruptive editing is prohibited, so calling it what it is and preventing it from continuing should be a perfectly fine action, but you can of course appeal it and someone else will have a look. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ToBeFree First, we must investigate the editor Skitash and another Algerian editor, as they prevent other people from editing articles that do not agree with their personal opinions, as they think that the article is theirs,WP:OWN If any other editor tries to edit an article in a way that contradicts their opinion, they report him so that he can be banned. Blazing73 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM. I thought you had been offered 24 hours to read the guide already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anyone, you can confirm that in the list of edit Blazing73 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the ambiguity; I didn't mean to accuse you of attacking anyone. I just wanted to note that complaining about others' behavior while blocked for something you did yourself is a so common mistake that spending a relatively short amount of time on reading the appeal guide should normally provide the information that this is a fruitless approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ToBeFree, Since I was mentionned in this discussion, I would like to point out that this user did actually made use of personnal attacks regarding my nationality, @M.Bitton left a reply in the Marinid TP and a note here about it. Best Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, they even used the same rhetoric above at 22:25. Well. Thanks, Nourerrahmane; time will show if the block needs to be extended (or later renewed) with a longer duration or to all pages. I'll keep it in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane You probably don't remember when you started attacking on the talk page Talk:Abd al-Mu'min But unfortunately, there is no original research on this issue, especially since most editors listen to only one side, and others exploit the issue to get banned. Blazing73 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing73, ToBeFree was extremely generous here with this partial block. Like, Drmies, I would have blocked you sitewide. In fact, if you continue with your bullshit behavior after this, I will make my prediction come true as your next block will be indefinite. Honestly, after all of this, I'm pretty sure that's only going to be a matter of time. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Berber Revolt. Skitash (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]