User talk:M.Bitton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Clean up

I just reached consesus with another that you reverted the pages to that we are cleaning up these pages as stated in the edit remark. Incredible93 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please revert your edits Incredible93 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Incredible93: What consensus (that allows you to remove content from a bunch of unrelated article) are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I was talking with @Incredible93 earlier - it looks like they are just removing outdated content from the articles. Wgullyn (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See the editor you rverted the edits to talk page we agree these edits are fine as long as i leave explanation that im cleaning the pages up.

The lack of indentation makes it difficult to tell who's saying what. Anyway, when it comes to content removal, you have to leave a valid explanation for each of your edits. Edit summaries such as "Consensus reached on their talk page" are meaningless, unless they point to the actual discussion about the actual content that is being removed. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I link to the exact conversation on their talk page in the edit summery? Incredible93 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to this discussion, then there is no point in linking to it since the content that you're removing is not mentioned. M.Bitton (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Its mentioned that i am cleaning these pages up of outdated content. Incredible93 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" and "outdated" don't mean much. You have to leave a valid explanation for each part that is being removed. Whether you do that through edit summaries or, depending on how much you're deleting, by leaving a longer note on the articles' talk page is entirely up to you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The content im removing are store closures which seem to take up most of these pages and overtime have become increasingly more irrelevant. What do you suggest I say?Incredible93 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You just have to explain why you're removing the content (I assume you have a reason to do so). M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Im going back to edit these pages and say im removing outdated store closures and closure content because they quickly seem to become increasingly irrelevant. Do you think this is sufficient? Incredible93 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Incredible93:I happened across some of these edits while patrolling Special:RecentChanges. Rather than taking it upon yourself to remove large portions of History sections, I suggest first using article Talk pages (e.g.:Talk:Destiny USA) and see if other editors concur with the removal. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Incredible93: Why are you ignoring Skywatcher68's advice? M.Bitton (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Im not editing destiny usa because there are so many store closures and i am writing in the talk page now to come to a consensus Incredible93 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Destiny USA was given as an example. I will be reverting tour edit and expect you to seek consensus for your content removal. M.Bitton (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Why i left a valid explanation as the content is not very much in the history?Incredible93 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I already explained why and so did Skywatcher68. I also noticed that you're leaving We are removing in your edit summaries. Who exactly are you referring to by "we"? M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No the edits i just reverted are very small.the destiny usa said its large and requires consesnus which i agree. Why are you reverting thses edits again without hearing from me first i just left a detailed valid explanation which you suggested to do for the much smaller pages. Incredible93 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also before i could make my point most of these pages wont have a response on their talk page for a valid consesus thats why our convesation here where →we agree to leave a valid response and to not delete so much in the history or leave a response. Most of these pages are dorment and i thi k we can agree i have left a valid response. Incredible93 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any detailed explanation, nor do I see one explaining why you removed the mention of the 8-screen movie theater. No, we didn't agree about you removing content without leaving a valid explanation. Anyway, I suggest you follow the above advice. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTc)

I clearly stated im removing closures as they become increasingly irrelevant his advice above is to go to the talk page for large removals and reach consesnus. The pages you reverted again are very small. Saying im removing closures where its small enough it doesnt consesus and has a valid explanation as theyre closure that quickly become irrelevant and take up space. This is detailed and the edits are small enough to not require consensus. Incredible93 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

there is clearly a consensus here becuase one will not be reached on these pages that are dorment and no one will repond its fair to reach one here Incredible93 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No. there is no consensus for you to remove chunks of text from different articles. our choice is simple: either you start a discussion in each and seek consensus there or leave them be. M.Bitton (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

you are not being fair most of these pages will not have a response but detiny usa no one will respond which if thats the case its fair i proceed to remove store closures.

You're not being fair to the editors who added the content. Give them a chance (like you you did here) and see how it goes. M.Bitton (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

i am by leaving an edit summery the ditors may revert with a response. What happens when no on responds on the talk page and I proceed to removed content. There are a few people why not use this as consensus? Be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredible93 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Instead of wasting your energy arguing about it here, why don't you follow the advice and see how it goes. If, let's say after a month or so, nobody replies, then you could go ahead and delete it. M.Bitton (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

im a very fair a thoughtful editor you out of everyone ive encountered youre by far the most abrasive unfair editor. Im going to go to alm of these talk pages and if no one repondЗs im.editing them and refering to this page if theres a despute and i will comment here if theres no response since you insist on prolonging this and being a very unfair editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredible93 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case, you're no longer welcome on my talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an alternative to seeking consensus on each article's talk page. That would be Wikilinking each article at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and getting consensus there all in one shot. However, in light of recent comments here, I'm not hopeful. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

barbary pirates

the edit was because the claim is unsubstantiated. i removed it from another article involving the barbary pirates with an edit reason and that was fine.

buluggin ibn ziri

I want to left your attention that there is a bit of contradiction between the zirid dynasty page and the buluggin ibn ziri as the latter states

Buluggin was then appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya with Kairouan as its capital

and it feels weird for wikipedia to contradict itself. If you feel this page needs fixing reply me.

cordially Sss2sss (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Djamâa Lihoud

Hello, M.Bitton. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Djamâa Lihoud, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

PamD 09:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Djamâa Lihoud listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Djamâa Lihoud. Since you had some involvement with the Djamâa Lihoud redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, M.Bitton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, M.Bitton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reaching out

Would you be interested in having a conversation some time? We have a lot of common ground and shared interests. I would be happy it if it would be possible for us to get to know each other more. Perhaps you might know of some platform where we could communicate while maintaining anonymity, if that's important to you. Just offering in case you would be interested. إيان (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@إيان: I don't use other platforms (Wikipedia is already eating up the little free time that I have), but if there is anything in particular that you want to talk about, please do not hesitate to contact me (either on my talk page or ping me from yours). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I just meant person to person, to talk about life, not necessarily about Wikipedia. I understand you're busy, though. Thank you for your response. إيان (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)