Gavecuriut

January 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Baba Ali Chaouch, 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. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, those are the same sources, history for two different people Baba Ali Chaouch and Ali Khodja, this one is about the history of the Constantine bey during 1830-1837 the other is about Kabyle tribes but i can't check it. It's enough to suppress the duplicate.

I was referring to the second source that you haven't checked. Since the statement is attributed to both, you can't claim that it failed verification until you verify both of them. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So you think these two sources are reliables for two different peoples with the same history at different period ? Gavecuriut (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I had checked, there is a public release version, the second one talk about organization of kabyles tribes. Gavecuriut (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link for the source that you claim to have checked (in minutes)? What makes you think that a source can't be used to support different statement? M.Bitton (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Throught the link, duplicate between Baba Ali Chaouch and Ali Khodja and sources doesnt talk about them. It's enough. Gavecuriut (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Please answer the question that I asked you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Through the link, you can read a part, do you think there is a duplicate ? Gavecuriut (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what you said. You claimed to have checked the source after finding a public release version. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• As well as making false claims (see above), you are now removing content that you simply don't like. if this continues, you will be reported to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The source must highlight this passage, i have checked and there is no mention about them as on the first one. According to me, it's a duplicate. Is there a forum to talk about it ? Gavecuriut (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me repeat: you made a false claim (highlighted above). I'm done wasting my time with you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a forum ? Because "we" dont believe that is true for them, can i remove the first one ? Gavecuriut (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes you can remove the first one, but this does not change the fact that you abused the community's trust by making a false claim. M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoever did this is the one who made this duplicate, and i let these same sources and same histories, can you give me the forum link please ? Gavecuriut (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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 ~~~~}}.  firefly ( t · c ) 12:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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).

Gavecuriut (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 because of my name through a sockpuppetry of someone. Gavecuriut (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes. You've provided no reason to believe the block is invalid. Yamla (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

---

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.