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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reverting edit from this [1]Logicalclassic (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this one [2] Logicalclassic (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Restoring an earlier revision of an article

Hi Logicalclassic, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

So why are you keeping that [3] there is no reason.Logicalclassic (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have understood but there is no reason to keep this no source edit passed Logicalclassic (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, i am blocked for no reason, i try to restore this edit [4] because someone has removed this [5]

Decline reason:

Here, you make a number of claims. These claims seem to be missing reliable citations; see WP:CITE and WP:RS and may be original research, which is prohibited here (see WP:NOR). Additionally, you've been violating WP:EW by continually reintroducing them. If you believe all these claims are already cited in the article, please make a new unblock request showing exactly where. Yamla (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

So this edit is more reliable no sources than this [6]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Voice of Clam 19:19, 22 October 2021 (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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nevermind but i will remove this edit where is source Logicalclassic (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I checked and it doesn't talk about origin, i will bring several sources. Logicalclassic (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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).

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

Request reason:

Blocked for 1 month, it's an abuse act of "tobefree" because i try to restoring something which was removed for no reason. Can you add this ? Raïs Hamidou

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:25, 25 October 2021 (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.

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

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noname JR, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

--Askelaadden (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Noname JR per the evidence presented at Wikipedia: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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]