User talk:Tackclean

August 2022

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry next time i would specify this is an update. Tackclean (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. Please remember to use an edit summary to explain your changes, and where possible cite a reliable source. Thanks! >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Care to explain why you replaced Algerian Arabic with Arabic? M.Bitton (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i didn't explain this edit, that's relative source which justifies this change "French is often used by men in trade and correspondence. Arabic is also used as second language". Tackclean (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By Arabic, they're clearly referring to Algerian Arabic (that's the only Arabic dialect that is spoken in the north of the country). Please don't change it again. M.Bitton (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of arabic form (literary, darija, etc.), the source doesn't point out any specific one. Tackclean (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Algerians don't use MSA to communicate with one another. This is a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, MSA is reserved for official use and the source doesn't stipulate one among its. Tackclean (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The listed languages are the ones that are "spoken" (if we were after what's "official", we'd remove French from it). Anyway, you're welcome to seek consensus for you change if you believe that the Kabyles speak MSA. M.Bitton (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he speaks MSA because it is taught at school (French too) and the source doesn't specify the variant but encompasses all in one. Consensus with who and where ? Tackclean (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, you might as well add English (also taught at school). You take it to the talk page and see who else agrees with you. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English is taught at university by the student choice whereas French and MSA is taught at school without choice ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]Tackclean (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colonel Amirouche. 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. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, even if there was a pushing before without using talk page, i let all versions with specifying "who sait what", no one is better than the other. Tackclean (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 2 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, i'm blocked for "Sockpupettry" and i don't do that. I use one account, i bring/use sources for editing, explain every edits and use talk page when there is a debate Tackclean (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My use of the checkuser tool confirms you have abused multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't do multiple account (even if that's authorized), i bring/use sources for editing, explain every edits and use talk page when there is a debate, there is no edit warring because i use talk page before for the debate, it's better to let two versions than only one, because all sources come from national press, excepted for secretary interview which from a national university, with specifying of each point of view. I have added some informations about his burial (the article didn't talk about it before) which are not deleted. That's implies a trial of intentions. I have respected rules and i have explained reasons to put both versions objectively. PS: If there is no debate, Wikipedia would be a piece of propaganda/useless. Tackclean (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

sockpuppetry is for those who provoke vandalism, i don't do that, i have explained before, multiple account is authorized (i have forgotten password), there is no reliable reason of blocking.Tackclean (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:17, 2 November 2022 (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.

It's amazing that you can be blocked repeatedly for socking and not have actually read the link to the policy you are repeatedly violating. You have abused multiple accounts to evade blocks. You can't do that. Every time you do, you will again be blocked. You cannot edit here under any account or IP. You need to find another hobby.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 2 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

reason: Multiple account is authorized, i didn't disrupt an article, i always bring informations with sources (which are still here) i'm blocked because i wanted to add a version, specifying each point of view with reliable sources (from family/wartime companion). It's a dictatorship or an encyclopedia. Failure to objectively provide information reveals vandalism and now i'm blocked for not doing let only one version.Tackclean (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If it is a dictatorship Wikipedia sure could use some pointers from Kim Jong-un or one of his mates.

Your talk page access have been revoked. If you think you can write a proper block appeal that has a remote chance of even being considered, the correct avenue henceforth is UTRS. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 21:16, 2 November 2022 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked talk page access. I'll leave the latest WP:IDHT appeal open for another admin to decline.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #64909

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ "La mondialisation, une chance pour la francophonie". Senat.fr. Archived from the original on 1 December 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2013.
^ Leclerc, Jacques (2009-04-05). "Algérie: Situation géographique et démolinguistique". L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Université Laval. Archived from the original on 2010-01-24. Retrieved 2010-01-08.
^ "ALGERIA Language & Toponymy How politically driven language policies have impeded toponymic progress." (Archive) Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use
^ Frawley, William J. (2003). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics: AAVE - Esperanto, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0195139778. Retrieved 21 December 2017.

[1] "La mondialisation, une chance pour la francophonie". Senat.fr. Archived from the original on 1 December 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2013.

[leclerc-2] Leclerc, Jacques (2009-04-05). "Algérie: Situation géographique et démolinguistique". L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Université Laval. Archived from the original on 2010-01-24. Retrieved 2010-01-08.

[PCGN2-3] "ALGERIA Language & Toponymy How politically driven language policies have impeded toponymic progress." (Archive) Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use

[4] Frawley, William J. (2003). International Encyclopedia of Linguistics: AAVE - Esperanto, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0195139778. Retrieved 21 December 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]