User talk:ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ

Algerian Expedition to Tuat (1579) moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Algerian Expedition to Tuat (1579). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen (1058) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen (1058) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen (1058) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing maintenance templates and dismissing WP:NOTABILITY[edit]

Please don't remove a maintenance template, like you did here, unless the issue raised in it has actually been resolved (usually with the help of other editors). The fact that you started edit-warring about it ([1]) is worse. Your own opinion about the notability of a topic is not a proper justification to dismiss this issue. You have been clearly made aware of the notability requirement by now and you know that notability concerns have been raised by many different editors about the articles you've created. This isn't the first time you've behaved in a way that seems to stonewall feedback by other editors (e.g. [2]). Please remember that Wikipedia has policies that apply to all editors and all articles, and that you are expected to edit collaboratively, not defensively, under these policies.

If you repeat behaviour that goes against these principles, it may be enough of a problem to justify a report to administrators. For your own sake, don't let it come to that. If you're not sure how to fix the problems raised about an article, you can always leave it alone and let other editors take care of it in the future, or leave a comment on the talk page with your suggestions, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, this comment is for your benefit, so you can avoid doing things that will make it more difficult for you and for others who want to improve the articles. R Prazeres (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could i ask some help for this issue please? If yes please tell me how. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fix or examine every article, but here are some suggestions on how you could think about notability in particular:

Rather than automatically creating a new article for each battle or conflict you're interested in, start by adding the information to an existing relevant article instead, or even to multiple existing articles, if appropriate. These kinds of articles already provide the necessary historical context that you need and they are read by more people, so it's more efficient to expand them first and then judge whether or not it's worth creating a new article. Your edit here at Rustamid dynasty is a good example of how this kind of edit could look like. Or, hypothetically, if there's a battle between the Almoravids and Almohads you want to write about, add a short description of it at Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate first, for example.

If, in the process of doing that, you realize you need more than a paragraph to describe the event itself and that you have enough sources to write more, then the topic probably meets the notability requirement. By "enough sources", we mean that you have multiple reliable sources (ideally books or articles written by academics) and that at least some of those sources describe the event with more than a few short sentences; that's what "significant coverage" (WP:SIGCOV) is about. There are a lot of battles that are mentioned in various sources but the authors only mention the date, the result, and little else. In those cases, even if the event might be important, it probably doesn't meet the requirement of WP:SIGCOV.

Also, in the case of battles/sieges that are part of a larger and clearly identifiable war or conflict, check if there's already an article about the war. If there isn't, then it might be better to create an article about the war first, rather than about a specific battle. A wider conflict is more likely to be notable than a single engagement.

I hope this helps a little. R Prazeres (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, il take the advice! ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translated articles[edit]

An article you published, Revolt of Sidi Yahia, appears to be a translation of the French Wikipedia article fr:Révolte de Cheikh Sidi Yahia ben Solimani, but you did not properly acknowledge or credit the French article in your initial edit summary. All Wikipedia articles are under a copyleft license that requires attribution to the original source and authors in all derivative works. Please review Help:Translation and, if you create any further translated articles, please give proper attrubution in your first edit summary and on the article's talk page. —ShelfSkewed Talk 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Thank you for your work on Battle of Tripoli (880). Not all topics are notable (suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article). The Battle of Tripoli (880) article does not cite sources establishing notability, so it may get deleted. A source shows that the article topic is notable when it:

contains significant coverage: it addresses the topic directly and in multiple paragraphs of detail. A source with only trivial or off-topic mentions of the subject doesn't count.
is a reliable source: it has a reliable publication process, or a suitable expert author (look up the reliability of common sources, or discuss). Newspapers and books usually meet this criteria, company and personal websites usually do not.
is independent of the subject: it isn't produced by the article's subject or someone similarly affiliated with it. For example, these are not independent: the subject's press releases, autobiographies, website, and interviews.

If you can find notability-establishing sources, please add them: more than one is needed unless the applicable subject-specific notability guideline states otherwise. Specific questions can be answered live at the Teahouse help forum. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrgiht, no problem. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ. Thank you for your work on Dhurma Massacre (1818). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. Needs work on referencing format and also more references. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution on the history of Yahia Al-Auresi![edit]

Hello, I've an already established and elaborate article about him which you may not have noticed. I've interlinked it with your articles in French and English. Please get in touch if you wish to collaborate. Jacob mfk (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ. Thank you for your work on Battle Of Mawiyya (1817). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of El Menaouer (1957), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sikorsky. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Algerian Expedition to Tuat (1579) has been accepted[edit]

Algerian Expedition to Tuat (1579), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for no reason, i think it might be of colletral damage cause i have no wrong doing, im collborating innocently without any harm, and hardly get in arguments, please understand, and i was caught by a proxy bot, i dudnt even use any vpn during my time on wikipedia. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide the IP address privately. Yamla (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ip[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My IP is 105.235.130.239 ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed proxy. See Template:Blocked p2p proxy for more details. Yamla (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @Yamla if i diable it will you unblock me? Cause i dont have any vpn or proxy on this, could you explain how i can disable it thanks. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot perform tech support for you. If you are able to disable it, the block should clear within 24 hours. If not, please contact spur.us and ensure they update their record for this IP address, then after they have done so, make a new request here. --Yamla (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i disabled it normally the block should go away thanks. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, what proxy or vpn were you using? You aren't obligated to answer but it would be helpful for others in this situation. --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe one of my siblings touched the wifi gestion so yeah its a proxy. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Oujda[edit]

Hello, ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ,

You are an experienced editor at this point so please do not create articles this incomplete in the main space of the project. Work in Draft space or User space like your Sandbox, submit drafts to WP:AFC and only put accepted and complete articles into the main space. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im so sorry, it was an accident i was gonna change its name but i clicked to make it an article. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop upgrading assessments on your own military history articles to B class[edit]

Please stop reassessing your own articles as B class contrary to the rules of the military history project on "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests": "Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below..." In some articles, there are questions outstanding from an uninvolved experienced user who is trying to help move the article to B class when it currently has a lower rating and improvements have been suggested for a higher rating. These cannot be ignored and the article assessed by the author of the article contrary to the rule on the assessment page. Thank you. cc:@Hawkeye7: as information and in the event you wish to change of overrule any of the previous comments. Donner60 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but thé reviewer Said After i answered his questions it would be made B class, and he didnt do that so i did it myself. Please forgive me for that then. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional questions on the talk page. In any event, it is contrary to the military history project assessment rules for author of, or primary contributors to, articles to assess their own work as B class regardless of the comments of anyone else. The assessor would need to do it. Donner60 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2024 French-Russian Aerial incident for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 French-Russian Aerial incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 French-Russian Aerial incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rosbif73 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Iflissen Revolt[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Iflissen Revolt, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Spanish-Algerian Conflict (1516-1792)[edit]

Hello, ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spanish-Algerian Conflict (1516-1792), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Berber.Enjoyer2 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Berber.Enjoyer2. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, ive been seeing that there was a mistake here, i actually know who "Berberenjoyer" is, i have him on discord, and is a friend of mine, but how, can this account be the sockpuppet if i have more edits then him? And it dosent really makes sense to me, that my friend had abused multiple other accounts, oh and for the name, It is common in Kabyla to have the name Aylen/Aylan, meaning "Shield" in ancient berber, and this is all just a coiencedence, i have proof of this, thanks. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sounds like this could be meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ, the account that is designated as the master in a sockpuppet investigation is the one that was created first chronologically. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@^sprouts! But its frustrating, ive created 60+ articles, worked hours on this account just to be blocked as a mere 'sockpuppet' cause of my friend's error? ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^sprouts! In addition to this, even if we were the same person, my account didnt break any rule? On the investigation page, @Skitash shows no abuse from my account, how can this be sockpuppetry, if there was no vandalising nor anything. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry can simply be the use of multiple accounts to deceive as being different people without disclosure. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asparagusus But we arent the same person. He has more unformal behaviour, mainly characterized by the difference in our language, for example, in the Capture of Mila article, he sent it to me on my discord, and i took the chance to reorganize it, at the first revision, we can see that he used one source, did some grammer errors, i fixed them, then i decided to reasearch the battle more. In which you can see that i added alot. Contrary to him. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, Im here to adress the claims about me being a sockpuppet. It is true, ive made another account to evade my block, and that is true, but it is false that i have other ips. And i didnt use any Vpn, i used a simple trick ive learnt. But enough of that. Im here to send out this last unblock request. By using every form of evidence that im not a sockpuppet.

We begin with Grammer. It appears if you go to our respective articles, we can see a huge difference, for example, On Capture of Mila (Now redirected), my 'puppet master' according to you, wrote "Aftermatch" seeing that he posted the article on our discord server i quickly changed it to aftermath, and added more citations to it. And just the fact that he is a seperate entity on discord is another proof of us not being the same person.
If this account was a sockpuppet, why would Berber.Enjoyer2 edit more on his 'sockpuppet' rather then his main account. It dosent really make sense does it? Why would he tire himself by working on 60+ articles and 3,000 edits on his account rather then 2 articles and 400~ edits on his main. Thus is another evidence
We have both spoken to M.Bitton, that had joined our server, from a request he sent to my discord, the difference in behaviour, and Grammer is again another evidence.

Keep in mind, i will not be returning as you speculate. As i have realized this isnt really important anymore. Wikipedia Basically became an obsession, to be honest, who really cares if you add another citation, or change a bunch of text or make a whole bunch of state calling it an article? Honestly, why should i waste my time trying to justify all this rather then working on School and doing things that will actually benefit me in life. Which Wikipedia does not offer btw. Until then, if my unblock request is accepted, il be active only occasionally, if this gets rejected, im not gonna waste time making another unblock request, or making another account.

Farwell i guess.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, Im here to adress the claims about me being a sockpuppet. It is true, ive made another account to evade my block, and that is true, but it is false that i have other ips. And i didnt use any Vpn, i used a simple trick ive learnt. But enough of that. Im here to send out this last unblock request. By using every form of evidence that im not a sockpuppet.
* We begin with Grammer. It appears if you go to our respective articles, we can see a huge difference, for example, On [[Capture of Mila]] (Now redirected), my 'puppet master' according to you, wrote "Aftermatch" seeing that he posted the article on our discord server i quickly changed it to aftermath, and added more citations to it. And just the fact that he is a seperate entity on discord is another proof of us not being the same person.
* If this account was a sockpuppet, why would [[User:Berber.Enjoyer2|Berber.Enjoyer2]] edit more on his 'sockpuppet' rather then his main account. It dosent really make sense does it? Why would he tire himself by working on 60+ articles and 3,000 edits on his account rather then 2 articles and 400~ edits on his main. Thus is another evidence
* We have both spoken to [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], that had joined our server, from a request he sent to my discord, the difference in behaviour, and Grammer is again another evidence.
Keep in mind, i will not be returning as you speculate. As i have realized this isnt really important anymore. Wikipedia Basically became an obsession, to be honest, who really cares if you add another citation, or change a bunch of text or make a whole bunch of state calling it an article? Honestly, why should i waste my time trying to justify all this rather then working on School and doing things that will actually benefit me in life. Which Wikipedia does not offer btw. Until then, if my unblock request is accepted, il be active only occasionally, if this gets rejected, im not gonna waste time making another unblock request, or making another account. 
Farwell i guess. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, Im here to adress the claims about me being a sockpuppet. It is true, ive made another account to evade my block, and that is true, but it is false that i have other ips. And i didnt use any Vpn, i used a simple trick ive learnt. But enough of that. Im here to send out this last unblock request. By using every form of evidence that im not a sockpuppet.
* We begin with Grammer. It appears if you go to our respective articles, we can see a huge difference, for example, On [[Capture of Mila]] (Now redirected), my 'puppet master' according to you, wrote "Aftermatch" seeing that he posted the article on our discord server i quickly changed it to aftermath, and added more citations to it. And just the fact that he is a seperate entity on discord is another proof of us not being the same person.
* If this account was a sockpuppet, why would [[User:Berber.Enjoyer2|Berber.Enjoyer2]] edit more on his 'sockpuppet' rather then his main account. It dosent really make sense does it? Why would he tire himself by working on 60+ articles and 3,000 edits on his account rather then 2 articles and 400~ edits on his main. Thus is another evidence
* We have both spoken to [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], that had joined our server, from a request he sent to my discord, the difference in behaviour, and Grammer is again another evidence.
Keep in mind, i will not be returning as you speculate. As i have realized this isnt really important anymore. Wikipedia Basically became an obsession, to be honest, who really cares if you add another citation, or change a bunch of text or make a whole bunch of state calling it an article? Honestly, why should i waste my time trying to justify all this rather then working on School and doing things that will actually benefit me in life. Which Wikipedia does not offer btw. Until then, if my unblock request is accepted, il be active only occasionally, if this gets rejected, im not gonna waste time making another unblock request, or making another account. 
Farwell i guess. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, Im here to adress the claims about me being a sockpuppet. It is true, ive made another account to evade my block, and that is true, but it is false that i have other ips. And i didnt use any Vpn, i used a simple trick ive learnt. But enough of that. Im here to send out this last unblock request. By using every form of evidence that im not a sockpuppet.
* We begin with Grammer. It appears if you go to our respective articles, we can see a huge difference, for example, On [[Capture of Mila]] (Now redirected), my 'puppet master' according to you, wrote "Aftermatch" seeing that he posted the article on our discord server i quickly changed it to aftermath, and added more citations to it. And just the fact that he is a seperate entity on discord is another proof of us not being the same person.
* If this account was a sockpuppet, why would [[User:Berber.Enjoyer2|Berber.Enjoyer2]] edit more on his 'sockpuppet' rather then his main account. It dosent really make sense does it? Why would he tire himself by working on 60+ articles and 3,000 edits on his account rather then 2 articles and 400~ edits on his main. Thus is another evidence
* We have both spoken to [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]], that had joined our server, from a request he sent to my discord, the difference in behaviour, and Grammer is again another evidence.
Keep in mind, i will not be returning as you speculate. As i have realized this isnt really important anymore. Wikipedia Basically became an obsession, to be honest, who really cares if you add another citation, or change a bunch of text or make a whole bunch of state calling it an article? Honestly, why should i waste my time trying to justify all this rather then working on School and doing things that will actually benefit me in life. Which Wikipedia does not offer btw. Until then, if my unblock request is accepted, il be active only occasionally, if this gets rejected, im not gonna waste time making another unblock request, or making another account. 
Farwell i guess. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I've revoked Talk page access. Your unblock request is a passive-aggressive mess, but if you nonetheless wish to be unblocked so you may edit "occasionally", I suggest (1) you wait at least six months (WP:SO) without socking and (2) make the unblock request from the master account, not this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about MC El Bayadh Bus Crash[edit]

Hello ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, MC El Bayadh Bus Crash, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC El Bayadh Bus Crash.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hi ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ, thank you for your work on Capture of Palestro (1871). Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of our new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work