User talk:Omar-toons

Hello,

You are on my talk page, please don't forget to sign your message by typing (~~~~).

Please, don't insert your comments in the middle of other users' ones, start a new section or add your message below other users' ones in an already existing section.

Thanks!

OT

Archived discussions:

• Apr. 2010 - Jul. 2012

Is it always the case that you only inform hand-picked users about discussions on the neutrality board (ironically this very board), and not all those people who are involved in the subject? You forgot to notify half a dozen other editors...this is actually classical WP:Canvassing which is very much frowned upon in WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. He actually notified everybody who took part in the past NPOV discussion, including those who disagree with him. Whereas you have actually just notified people that agree with you. There's that "do as I say, not as I do" attitude, rearing its head once more. nableezy - 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did not notify at least five users who had participated in the discussion during the last couple of weeks, all of them happening to disagree with his views. This is plainly weak, are you guys here for doing serious work or just pushing your exotic views? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure they teach this in Europe, but when replying to somebody you should actually read what they wrote, instead of just imagining what they might have and replying to that. But maybe its just those darned madrassas that teach such subversive ideas. nableezy - 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

First Barbary War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ottoman

List of former sovereign states (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bougie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Barbary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Loreen (singer): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zayyanid dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beylik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for your contributions on the Zirids - the map is still under discussion. The max expansion map should be used instead of the map in 1000ce. Dzlinker (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Algerian Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seeker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chafarinas Islands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Isla del Rey

Chefchaouen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hammam

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of Morocco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Al-Walid, Abdul Malek, Abd al-Malik II and Chérif

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You just undid one of my modifications in Template:USAAF 12th Air Force World War II . You replaced French Morocco by Morocco knowing that the political entity existing at that time is French Morocco. At my big surprise, few minutes earlier, in the article Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, you replaced Algeria by French Algeria !!!! How it could be? And what is the logical basis of these two contributions? knowing that Morocco, Algeria as well as Tunisia were French...

Any revert you do in the future will be considered as vandalism. If you want to make any modification you have to discuss it FIRST...

Regards

Fort-Henry (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] -Omar-toons (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are talking about territories, why did you insist on French Algeria in the article Claude Cohen-Tannoudji instead of Algeria which represents the territory? I repeat again: What is the logical basis of your modifications? If you replace French morocco by Morocco in the present template you MUST revert your modifications in the article Claude Cohen-Tannoudji. Do you understand? Fort-Henry (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political entities "at the time" are used in Biographies' templates, that's why. --Omar-toons (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So so so, according to your understanding, we should use political entities at the time only in biographies. Where is that written in Wiki? Is there an official consensus or some official writing guidelines in Wiki telling that? If yes you must provide them that we can follow, otherwise do not use this kind of (arguments) again. Now if we should use the political entity's name of the time in biographies so I will mention in the article Hassan II of morocco, I will mention that the king was born in French Morocco.. Isn't it?????? Fort-Henry (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, since people born in Protectorates aren't considered the same way than the ones born in Colonies. For example, French people born in pre-1956 Morocco and Tunisia are considered (even officially by the French Gov) as born in these respective countries, while those born in French Algeria are considered as "born in France".

The same way a person born in Puerto-Rico isn't considered as born in the USA, while a person born in the Territory of Yukon (even if not a Province) is considered as "born in Canada". Is that too hard to understand?

On the other hand, there were many discussions about this kind of subjects and no consensus was found, but we usually avoid anachronistic statements.

Omar-toons (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol still arguing about this shit! give up, there is better stuff to do! or just keep it on the frenchies wiki. -Dzlinker (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore your comments about people born in the US...Those about people born in Canada made me laugh, seriously ! You wrote (...people born in Protectorates aren't considered the same way than the ones born in Colonies...) from where did you get that? Is there any law!? Writing guideline in Wiki or somewhere else stating that!!?? So once again where are your proofs!? Same remark when you state that (French people born in pre-1956 Morocco and Tunisia are considered (even officially by the French Gov) as born in these respective countries). Are you serious using this arguments!!?? FRENCH PEOPLE born in Morocco or Tunisia during the protectorate are considered French as they are French. So you mean that a Frenchman born in Morocco is considered to be born in Morocco but the one born in Algeria is considered to be born in France...and you put between parentheses even officially by the French Gov!!! From where did you get that? Any link or source for such statement??? People born in Morocco, even native Moroccans were born under the French jurisdiction, born while France was governing their country, to designate the place where they were born one should use French Morocco, same thing for other north African countries. Now unless you can provide something official from the wiki politics, you MUST also use french morocco, French Tunisia and French Algeria in biographies as well as when designating the territory. Regards Fort-Henry (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry but it doesn't fit. And yes, French gov doesn't consider those born in Morocco and Tunisia the same way it considers those born in Algeria.

I have nothing more to say if you can't make the difference between a Colony, a Protectorate and an integral part of a Country. Note that the ICJ considers Protectorates as sovereign, just to make it easier for you to see the difference.

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has already been reached regarding the article Yves Saint-Laurent and three others. You have been part of the discussion (insisting that the place of birth should be French Algeria and not Algeria) and, later, you did not make any change relative to the place of birth: Algeria, designating the territory. So why did you come after all of that to modify the place of birth in the article Claude from Algeria to French Algeria???? If you accept something you should continue accepting it. And once again, I would like to understand the logical basis of such contributions. Regards. Fort-Henry (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you made a little mixup.

By the way, if you understand French, here's an article explaining the difference between Protectorates, Colonies and France itself (including Algeria) regarding "Citizenship and Nationality" : Christian Bruschi, La nationalité dans le droit colonial, in: Procès, Cahiers d’analyse politique et juridique n° 18, 1987/88

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to write mix-up and not mixup. In such a situation you should use the word confusion as there is no mistake.

You seem to have a problem with Algeria. In the article Yves Saint-Laurent the word Algeria designates also the geographical territory so why you bother yourself insisting on French Algeria? If you do insist (and you do have all the right) it would be the same for French Morocco in the template you keep modifying. Now, if you want to merge Algeria with France in that template, good, just do it...Fort-Henry (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wp:3RR is a "Bright line". Discuss it in talk or take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Jim1138 (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fort-Henry (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Omar. I saw this edit. I'm aware that French is not an official language of Morocco. I'm also aware that French is not natively spoken there (then again, neither is Modern Standard Arabic, which is not intelligible with Moroccan Arabic but is one of the official languages of Morocco). Nonetheless, the French name must be put in the lead anyway, because the CIA World Factbook states that French in Morocco is "often the language of business, government, and diplomacy" as can be seen here

Omar, Wikipedia is a tertiary reference. That means it is based on what other sources say about a subject, not about the editor's personal opinions. The CIA World Factbook's designation of French as a de facto national language of Morocco means that Wikipedia must list it in the infobox and in the lead. Also, every country has a national language, or two, or three. They may be official, but they do not have to be. Some countries have unofficial national languages.

I'll be happy to do additional research, but I am confident that it will also say that French is a de facto national language of Morocco and/or that the Moroccan government uses it as a working language in at least some of its ministries.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on Languages_of_Morocco#French. In particular I found some interesting stuff related to Moroccan art and French WhisperToMe (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a significant amount of information to the Languages of Morocco article. Please review it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, an RFC would be great :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting... One source I found that it seems like Moroccans do not define French as a national language - they define three: Standard Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, and Berber. I think Ennaji's survey is quite useful! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you go to Casablanca sometimes? There is a photo in Casablanca I would like for someone to take WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely, but I'll keep it in mind if I go there in the coming days. What photo do you need? --Omar-toons (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need the Royal Air Maroc head office at Casablanca Anfa Airport. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to take some pictures next time I'll be there (wasn't there for a wile btw) --Omar-toons (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Argh, did not get back to ya earlier, I was out in the boonies… For the USAF template, you are not the one decide nor the one to give orders, well, you should not be allowed to. You modify that template after that you want to oblige other contributors to reach a consensus AFTER you have written what you want !!!! What’s that. We will go back to the original text prior to your modification after that we will (I hope) reach a consensus…Do you understand!? PRIOR to your modification and not after. Think you get a first warning, you must be collaborative so I expect you, as a sign of good faith to revert back to the original version. Fort-Henry (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"First warning"? Is this a joke?

Feel free to seek for a consensus on article's TP, but try, before all, to understand what other people made instead of editing the template based only on your POV.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I am joking son!?

The warning was about your impolite and rude statements against other users.

And, try to be cooperative; the article will go prior to your modifications. You modify the original version after that you want to make people think they should respect your will and keep the article as you modified it. Again, this is not your own blog. And, again, try to be cooperative. Fort-Henry (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

We are not done yet for the Maghrebi Quarter, a more deep and wide discussion has to be initiated...Fort-Henry (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss what? The fact that you don't agree with what reliable sources say?

Thanks to read WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:V.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is as clear as the blue sky to discuss the title Maghrebi Quarter

You provided 4 sources or so and you expect the english reader to base his knowledge on those 4 sources...It is an Encyclopedia not a blog...Fort-Henry (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have seen you have reverted my last contributions. I do not really understand why is that.

• The fact that Spanish and French are still widespread especially by the businessmen and intellectual elites needs to be sourced. It may be, of course, obvious for you but not for someone who is not Moroccan.
• The section ‘Description’ does not contain any reference, so please, our aim as contributors is to source it so its content can be reliable and not the opposite.

Thanks to be collaborative. Fort-Henry (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Could u please show me where is the source for the statement relative to Valls' family? I may be wrong...

Thanks Fort-Henry (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

• You are insisting on the fact that the Republic of Sale’ was a major piratical port without giving any source…and you deleted twice the tags I added asking to source this information. We can understand from the article that Sale’ was a piratical port but stating that this republic which lasts around 42 years was a major port should be sourced.
• Do you want the English speaking reader to consider then to believe that ‘’’ Cultural differences between the native Saletin people and the Morisco refugees, together with language differences led the newcomers to settle in the old Medina of Rabat, on the opposite bank of the Bou Regreg’’’ only because you wrote it!!!??? So please provide sources or simply delete this statement.
• If you remove again the tags it will be considered as vandalism.

Fort-Henry (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I get it. Fort-Henry (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Berber people". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Fort-Henry (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before i created another dispute resolution discussion (link to it), hoping you'll do your part to help solving this issue. Regards. -Dzlinker (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omar-toons,

Given the edit summary of this edit, I'd like to remind you to be more civil when editing. An occasional lapse or two is one thing, but this is coming off of a history of complaints and a recent AN/I discussion. There's really not any reason to have had that kind of edit summary, regardless if it was directed at the content or at another editor. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 14:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of education, uncooperative, and enmity manifest. Good reasons for a block, be carful. Still a fact: Berlusconi famous escort was born there. Not reverting, counting on your good sense to revert the wise version to the 'stupid' one. Regards. - Dzlinker (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let me laugh! Coming from a guy who claims being a "Nazi" and a "former SS ", I really don't care...
--Omar-toons (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You do not seem to understand that you should not simply erase the content relative to the Moroccan prostitute Karima El Mahroug from the article. What you are doing is vandalism. Do you understand?

Thanks to be collaborative.

Fort-Henry (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reporting. Please to support with any other overtaken policy you noticed. - Dzlinker (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety should be proven. Is that a joke? About 486,000 results in Google. Who the hell in the world doesn't know Ruby?

Once again, you do not seem to understand...good Fort-Henry (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.. Fort-Henry (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please join the discussion here[2], instead of initiating an edit war, please explain why you keep deleting the content relative to Karima El Mahroug. Thanks Fort-Henry (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Why did you remove the tag asking from sources? The tag will remain unless you provide sources. Clear enough? Fort-Henry (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob'! Source given. Actually, it was already on the article, but of course it is easier to put a tag than to copy the ref on the sentence it has to belong to. --Omar-toons (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my warning here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ghomara (tribe) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Masmouda

Ghomara language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Masmouda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I hope you are well and thriving!! WikiAfrica has just put out a call for two Wikipedians in Residence. One in Cape Town at WikiAfrica, at the Africa Centre; and the other for WikiAfrica Cameroon in Douala, at doual’art. If you are interested, please contact either Marilyn [marilyn.doualabelldoualart.org] for the WikiAfrica Cameroon call or Isla [islahfafricacentre.net] for the WikiAfrica position in Cape Town.

If you are not interested in applying, I would be very grateful if you could spread this call far and wide among your networks to ensure that both projects get excellent candidates. Here is the link for the information page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/two-wikipedians-in-residence-for-africa/

Best regards, Islahaddow

(This message was sent using Lucia Bot at 22:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for bringing up my attention to edits in the Morocco articles. I smell some fishy behavior do you think it's a WP:SOCK? Tachfin (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The article prostitution in Morocco has not been created by Dzlinker, it exists since 2008. Dzlinker moved the content to that article as he did few hours ago by copying the same content in the article prostitution in Africa. No move, no deletion, the section will remain as it is until a consensus is reached. Do you understand ???? Thanks for remaining cooperative. Fort-Henry (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Wikipedia has some guidelines and policies, some are general while others concern some specific projects and articles. Then, since the article Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has to follow WP:WPC guidelines, this section should not remain.

Feel free to make a proposal on WP:WPC to change these guidelines.

--Omar-toons (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to take the article Morocco for your own. The policy you mentioned gives GUIDELINES, it does not oblige for a specific content! Clear enough? Fort-Henry (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the thread Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#How_many_official_national_languages_are_there_in_the_world.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omar-toons. You have new messages at Talk:Moroccan_Quarter.
Message added 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berber Revolt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamesna and Berber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omar, thanks for your edit but i dont agree with you about the translation of Ihssan, i speak arabic and im from morocco, google translate is not accurate Ihssan means Spirituality you can check it on their officiel web site: french : http://www.aljamaa.net/fr/document/1148.shtml english: http://yassine.net/en/document/4856.shtml an other source from Berkley Center : http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/organizations/justice-and-spirituality-movement-al-adl-wa-al-ihsan --KnightYusuf (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but things don't work like that for two reasons :

• first, ihsan can not be translated by "spirituality", but "charity" or "beneficence", and there's no dictionary that actually translates it by "spirituality" ;
• second, and the most important thing, the association's name is reported as "justice and charity" on many WP:RS [3][4][5][6].

Thanks for your understanding

Hi Omar-Toons,

I recently (about a month ago) wrote two articles on Moroccan history - one on the History of Marrakesh, another on the Battle of Sidi Bou Othman, that I would appreciate more experienced editors on Moroccan topics like you and Tachfin to take a look at. If you have a few minutes, I would appreciate a quick proof-read for errors and omissions. Thanks in advance. Walrasiad (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omar, I'm looking for a wikipedist that could be able to translate two image captions in the French Wikipedia. Could you please help me with this and this? Many thanks into advance --Ecemaml (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done :) (yw!)

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC) PS: I'm afraid I'll come back with new requests sooner than later[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former European colonies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish North Africa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to think about posting at WP:MR. I'm not sure what my own view is, but that's probably the place for contesting a merge. Formerip (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I was not copying and pasting. i was putting the information in the right article. The article about Tihamah is so biased and misleading and lacks information. In fact, so many of en wiki articles has a big mistake about the location of Mecca. In most articles, they refer to Mecca as part of Hejaz. This is not true. For centuries, arabic and muslim scholars have regarded Mecca as veing in Tihamah not Hejaz. The mistake in wiki comes from the name of the sharif Kingdom. That inclusion is not based on reliable geographic sources. It was just easy for the kingdom to have one name instead of two. However, the resources I am posting are very old, some of them are 1400 years old, and all of them differentiate between Tihamah and Hejaz. As you can check, I was not just randomly replacing Hejaz with Tihamah in the articles I edited. I replaced it when it was not right and left it when it was right. For example, Medina is in hejaz and I did not touch that. Thank you. --LePatro (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you can read Arabic so I'd like you to read this passage of (معجم البلدان) which is one of the oldest Arabic books about the geography of the arabian peninsula. You can see clearly here that Mecca is in Tihamah wheras Medina is in Hejaz --LePatro (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make it sound like old. Mecca is regarded as being in Tihamah for centuries until this kingdom of Hejaz that misled everything. Prophet mohammed himself who was born in Mecca said that he is one of the Tihami people not the Hejazi people since he was born in Mecca. I am adding real verifiable sources and I see no reason to delete tem and insisting on the wrong unsourced info. --LePatro (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I will repeat it again : thanks to read WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE as well as WP:RS, and maybe WP:TRUTH.

So, no matter what a unique source says and what was the place called 14 centuries ago, it is widely accepted and reported by the vast majority of RS that all these topics are related to Hedjaz, not sth called "Timamah", a name that most people never heard.

Thanks for understanding.

--Omar-toons (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on Flag of Western Sahara. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  MastCell ^Talk 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Omar-toons! Is it possible to drop the more references needed tag from the Banu Ghaniya article or it needs further clarification? Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I you want to Wikipedia to use {{noflag}} Western Sahara instead of {{flag|Western Sahara}}, start a discussion (maybe at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Sahara). "unjustified rv" is not a valid reason for ignoring the objection of another editor. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Omar-toons reported by User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman (Result: ). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Omar-Toons. You've been making reverts about Western Sahara at a large number of articles, and this qualifies you for an edit-warring block. (From your contribution list, see all of your March 31 edits that contain 'NPOV' in the edit summary). Consider promising to take a one-week break from any article edits regarding SADR, Morocco or the Western Sahara, and the closer of the WP:EW report might take this into account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Omar-toons reported by User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman (Result: 48h). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar, you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Listing_languages_of_a_country_and_NPOV:_Algeria_and_the_French_language WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for beautiful additions to Perejil Island Victuallers (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made various edits to articles on I have contributed to related to medieval Morocco. With respect, I think these edits are confusing modern and medieval concepts.

• Geographically, the modern state that is known in English as Morocco roughly corresponds to the region that medieval Arab historians and geographers called Al-Maghrib al Aqsa and medieval European historians called Morroch. I have no problem with using the term "Morocco" in a geographical sense when writing about the medieval period.
• Politically, the Almoravids and then the Almohads made their capital at Marrakesh and ruled large parts of modern Morocco, Spain, Portugal, Algeria etc. The successor Marinid state based on Fez varied in extent, but at times covered much of modern Morocco, Algeria and even Tunisia. The heads of the dynasties did not call themselves "king of Morocco", since the term did not yet exist.
• The people of the region were mostly Berber, with a steady inflow of Arabs during the middle ages. Although these two ethno-linguistic groups were spread across the Maghreb and beyond, individuals would have identified with their local tribe and region. They would certainly not have identified with any modern state. There were "Moroccan people" only in the sense of people who lived in what is now called Morocco.

The English Wikipedia should follow the terminology that is used by academic sources that discuss the subject.

• The region is called Morocco.
• The Marinid rulers are mostly identified by dynasty as in "the Marinid ruler Abu Yakub". Their kingdom is often called after the capital, Fez, as in "Sultan of Fez". Sources occasionally describe the extent of the realm as "ruler of Morocco", but do not use terms like "Sultan of Morocco" or "Kingdom of Morocco" since those would be anachronisms.
• The people may be called Berbers or Arabs as appropriate. When discussing trade and war, they are mostly named after the ruling dynasty, as "the Marinid forces", or just "the Marinids". Sometimes they are named by city, as "there was rivalry between Tlemcen and Fez". The people are not called "the Moroccans". That would also be an anachronism.

Whether the academic sources are right in their choice of terminology is irrelevant. The English Wikipedia should follow common academic usage. This is to ask that you stop introducing anachronisms like "Sultan of Morocco" that were not used at the time and are not used by modern sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was discussed many times before (since 2007 in the Bokpasa's case on Talk:History of Morocco). :Btw, not all academic sources agree with your interpretation, even most sources disagree as the report the Idrisid dynasty as the founder of the modern Moroccan state, not the "Kingdom of Fez" (which is WP:OR).

Also, quoting myself on the last time this issue was discussed:

• btw I find after 10 seconds on Scholar that:
  - "tradition (...) reaches back to the origins of the modern Moroccan state in the ninth century Idrisid dynasty which founded the venerable city of. Fes", G Joffe, Morocco: Monarchy, legitimacy and succession, in : Third World Quarterly, 1988
  - "The Idrisids, the founder dynasty of Fas and, ideally at least, of the modern Moroccan state (...)", Moroccan dynastic shurfa’‐hood in two historical contexts: idrisid cult and ‘Alawid power in : The Journal of North African Studies Volume 6, Issue 2, 2001 [7]

So, calling medieval Moroccan "Moroccans" is like calling medieval Ottomans "Turks", it is not an anachronism but it is made to make it more understandable to most people. Maybe they weren't called "Moroccans" in English but in Arabic they were called "Maghrebis", as they are still called today.

--Omar-toons (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of modern-day Morocco can be traced back to Mauretania or earlier, but that is not relevant. These articles talk about the western Maghreb in the Marinid period. We should follow the terminology used by academic English-language sources. We can certainly add explanations like "in modern-day Morocco", but should not use terms like "Sultan of Morocco" or "Kingdom of Morocco" since these are anachronistic for rulers of this period. A reasonable compromise would be to give the title as "Marinid Sultan" and describe the realm as something like "ruler of a realm based on Fez that covered most of modern-day Morocco." Aymatth2 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples: Suleiman the Magnificent was not "Sultan of Turkey". Henry VIII was not "King of Britain". Julius Caesar was not "Emperor of Italy". Historians do not use those titles. Our job is to accurately report what the historians say. Readers do not want our personal views. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal interpretation, nothing else. Sources say that "the modern Moroccan state was founded in 789", that's all. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Britannica: "Marīnid dynasty (...)that replaced Almohad rule in Morocco and, temporarily, in other parts of northern Africa during the 13th–15th century (...) the Marīnids, under Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb, became masters of Morocco." (-> As you can read, they say that the Marinids became "masters of Morocco", not "masters of what is now Morocco", as you replaced on many Marinids related articles, which is WP:OR)
• Larousse (FR): "Marinides ou Mérinides : Dynastie marocaine (1269-1465)." (="Moroccan dynasty")

Stating that "Morocco didn't exist because the word "Morocco" didn't exist in English in 1330" is WP:OR. Also, your comparison is WP:OR as Italy isn't a political continuity of the Roman Empire, while nowadays Morocco is the political continuity of medieval Morocco (as the French Republic is the continuity of Capetian France, but not of the Gauls).

--Omar-toons (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can add these:

• "mid-14th century : Morocco began to be established as a distinct separate entity, associated with the cult of the early Muslim leaders in the area, especially Idris I" - D. Lea & A. Row, A political chronology of Africa, p.298
• J. D. Fage & R. A. Oliver, The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3, pp.354-376 : the authors randomly refer to them as "Sultans of Fez" or "Sultans of Morocco", to the "-in the 2nd half of the 14th century- (...) the three kingdoms of Morocco, Granada and Tlemcen" (p.365), "the Marinids succeeded the Almohads in Morocco" (p.355) (-> see that the authors do not say "in what is now Morocco").

So, unless you can prove that your opinion prevails over the one of these authors, and unless you can seek for a new consensus, the Marinids wills still be referred as "Sultans of Morocco". --Omar-toons (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Marinids were rulers of the geographical region called Morocco. Some books do use the title "Sultan of Morocco" for Marinid rulers, but mostly historians avoid the title as an anachronism. The Marinids were not rulers of the Kingdom of Morocco. I do not understand why you are passionate about using this title for the early rulers of the region - but I am not interested in getting into an edit war over such a trivial issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal opinion, and it does NOT prevail over the Larousse encyclopedia, over Fage or over any other WP:RS, that's all. Bring sources explaining that these authors are wrong, we'll discuss the issue after that basing on the WP:NPOV policy, but all I know is that the fact that the Marinids were "Sultans of Morocco" isn NOT WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. --Omar-toons (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the name ⴰⵎⵕⵕⵓⴽ from Morocco? What was wrong? 83.8.253.175 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained, sources need to be on the topic. For a linguistic claim, you need linguistic sources. At least take it to talk. Continuing to edit war is a good way to get blocked. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even give a single source. Ethnologue is not a WP:RS. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the same for all the articles. I didn't think I needed to spell it out in the info box, since it was already spelled out in the text, but now I have.

I'm not saying it's the final word, only that it's a linguistic source on the classification of Berber. You should have something at least as good to counter it. The one you've been using is not a linguistic ref, and only speaks of a hypothesis based on toponyms, from who knows where. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, seems that you didn't even open the link to the second source that I gave, otherwise you would see that it is a specialized source... also, BRILL's encyclopedia (the fist reference given) is a highly trusted WP:RS ;

Second, this is not a WP:RS: even its author says that it is a preliminary list and that there are still many problems and I would be grateful for further additions and emendations (first paragraph, first page!!!). --Omar-toons (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only means that he's honest. I'll take a look at your 2nd source.

Oh, I had taken a look at your 2nd source, and dismissed it. Religion isn't the same thing as language. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion? Where do you see that it talks about religion? --Omar-toons (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I just undrstood: you didn't even try to know what's BRILL's encyclopedia, you just read the title :D. Seriously, assuming good faith after that wouldn't be easy... --Omar-toons (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith isn't easy if you don't practice it yourself. You're evidently not worth the time it's taking me to write this, so goodbye. And come up with an actual reason for your tags, or the come down. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former sovereign states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You left our talk unfinished. The current text is still the old one. So, there is no agreement on the current text. Can we get down to do some serious work on this?--Megustalastrufas (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dark Sun (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SNVI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I started an article on the Language Attitudes Among Arabic-French Bilinguals in Morocco. Do you want me to send you a copy of the second book review I used as a source (I don't know what happened to the first one)? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in starting Lycée Français Paul Gauguin in Agadir, Morocco? I found some sources:

• "Agadir: Le collège Paul Gauguin menacé de fermeture." L′économiste. Édition N° 3962 du 2013/02/06.
• Union des Conseils de Parents d’Elèves du Maroc – Conseil des Parents d’Elèves Agadir. "Agadir : les enjeux réels de la fermeture du Lycée Paul Gauguin" (Archive). La Voix de France. Friday 24 January 2014.
• Official site: http://www.efmaroc.org/gauguin/index.php (is http://www.lyceefrancaisagadir.org/ a different school?)
• http://www.lyceefrancaisagadir.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CR-r%C3%A9union-2-f%C3%A9vrier-Agadir.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6PYzsHN1T

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omar-toons! The last thing that I would want to happen is an edit war, I so I am happy to discuss any differences we might have. In my opinion there are several topics on which we differ and I will list them from I what I perceptive to be the least to the most difficult to reconcile:

• (1) This edit where you removed the Jordanian occupation from List of military occupations. The Jordanian actions in this case consisted of both an occupation and annexation, so it should be on the list even under your view of things (i.e. Jordan began occupying in 1948, but did not annex until 1950).
• (2) This and this edit where I removed claims and sources from both Military occupation and List of military occupations. There are several claims and sources to which I object:
  • (1.A) "During civil wars, the districts occupied by rebels are considered to be foreign." – This may have been the case 100 years ago when the source for this claim was written, but now the law has changed after the adoption of the Geneva Conventions and the distinction between international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts. Today international law only recognizes that foreign territory can be occupied.
  • (1.B) "The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation." – This may be the case colloquially, but "occupation" and "annexation" are as legal terms in these articles. Under international law, territory cannot be annexed, thus any purported annexation is an occupation under international law (see the ICRC, p. 9, "The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.") In other words, a state may claim that it was annexed territory, and for purposes of domestic law it is annexed, but under intentional law that can never be the case.
  • (1.B) The sources include Eyal Benvenisti's The International Law of Occupation, which is used to support the above quoted statement. However, Benvenisti appears to argue that there is little distinction between annexation and occupation. The table of contents, which can be viewed via Amazon.com, show that he categorizes annexations under occupations (page xi).
  • (1.C) The last source is an article from the Journal of Peace Research, "Socio-Psychological Implications for an Occupying Society: The Case of Israel", which is written by psychologists and does not seem to be an authoritative source on the laws of war.
• (3) The last issue is this edit were you removed Western Sahara from the list of current occupied territories on List of military occupations. I do not have additional arguments beyond what I have already written. Under international law, annexations are illegal. Thus any instance of an annexation is a belligerent occupation. – Zntrip 00:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In all these cases, including a territory in a list depends on the definition of "Military occupation" and "annexation". A central point is the fact that, in the case of a military occupation, there's no claim to sovereignty over the territory (Edelstein p.52). Thus, for both the West Bank and Western Sahara cases, Jordan and Morocco had/has this kind of claims and granted the inhabitants their respective citizenship, which isn't the case, for example, for the Israeli link with the West Bank.

Then, per definition, this case also applies to Crimea and Golan, nonobstant the fact that these annexations are illegal regarding international law. Per se, We're talking here about Illegal annexations: illegal but annexations, different from military occupations.

Endorsing the opinion that these annexations are military occupations aren't WP:NPOV as this is a claim generally made by one side of the conflict, and Wikipedia has to show facts, not opinions.

Btw, I'm not really aware of the West Bank case, and I can't argue more than that. However, concerning the Western Sahara case, the term "military occupation" is only used by one side of that conflict (ie: the Polisario front) and is no more used by the UN since the 80's, and the territory isn't controlled by the military but by civil bodies. And, since the are a lot of edit-wars on Wikipedia concerning that issue the best way to prevent them is by using neutral wording (ie: WP:NPOV), that's why using the word "control" instead of "occupation" or "annexation" is, imho, maybe not the more NPOV but, at least, the less POV.

Note: the references that you deleted from the article Military occupation weren't "recent" but added and discussed some 2 years ago.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies with regard to the edit summary. I mistakenly thought I was editing "List of military occupations" at the time. You are correct, they were added much earlier.

I think our divergence of opinion is due to a difference in interpretation of the phrases "occupation" and "annexation." You are of the view that they are mutually exclusive cases: a situation is either an occupation or an annexation. My understanding is that there is overlap, that is, all annexations are occupations. I'm approaching this purely from a legal perspective. The following quote from the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law's entry on "Annexation" may be helpful:

"Since, under present international law, annexations are unlawful and do not constitute a valid title to territory, any exercise of sovereign authority by the annexing State concerning the population of the annexed territory would, in principle, seem to be legally null and void unless it could also be effected on a different legal basis. Since annexations are, as a rule, the result of military occupation, the legal situation of the inhabitants of the annexed territory would, in principle, be governed by the rules of belligerent occupation and occupation after armistice, respectively."

Since this appears to be what the law is, I don't see why this would be considered POV. Additionally, "occupation" and "annexation" both have negative connotations, so I don't see why "annexation" is any less POV than "occupation". If there are POV concerns, as there evidently are with respect to Western Sahara, would it not be an amicable solution to simply explain the nuances of the different perspectives? For example, if Western Sahara where to be included in the list, there could be a disclaimer that its status as an occupied territory is disputed or contested. – Zntrip 01:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article Maghrebian community of Paris. You may be interested in it! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has done a significant amount of research on this issue for a number of years i find your assertion that the Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis were under control of the ottoman empire quite laughable. The three "provinces" as you call them were defacto independent states and only nominal vassals of the ottoman empire in that they paid tribute (or another view might be a tax) to the empire once a year and recognized the emperor as caliph. In all other regards they conducted independent policy, they declared war on states that were at peace with the empire, conducted treaties on their own behalf, and in all regards acted like independent states. You have not provided any source that rebuffs this assertion, which was sourced in the text of the First Barbary War article before you changed it.XavierGreen (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm inclined to semi-protect the page and block you for edit warring. Please comment at AN3 why you think you should not be sanctioned. I don't promise that another admin will not take action in the interim.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to engage (here or on the Talk page in question) in a cordial discussion about how to resolve these persistent issues?

If yes, I will try to put aside the negativity of the past and work with you in as constructive and friendly a way as possible.

Please have a think about it and inform me if you agree with this approach. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Pan-Arab colors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has said that there's a mistake on this picture. Could you check/fix it please? George8211 / T 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Algerian Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transports. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottoman Algeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beylerbeylik. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I would like to publish your map on the territory of Tekna in a publication, a chapter in a forthcoming book. I need a better definition and, moreover, I'd quote you directly. Do you think this is possible? sincerely 90.0.151.163 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I drew my map basing on A. Gaudio's one (Attilio Gaudio, Les populations du Sahara occidental: histoire, vie et culture, KARTHALA Editions (1993), p.103), and I think that it could be more appropriate to cite the original one rather than mine.

Btw, I don't know how does "copyright things" work but I think that it would be fine as long as it is fine for the original publisher.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my post on your talk page - I clicked on the wrong editor's "talk page" link. Self administering upper-cuts momentarily. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principality of Debdou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air transports of heads of state and government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grumman Gulfstream. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi

i do not see this internal link "Independence Day (Algeria)" is irrelevant to "List of colonial heads of Algeria"

(The dialectic of colonialism and independence) 

--محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are party to a dispute. Please be kind enough to give your opinion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Caliphate — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Omar-toons. FreeatlastChitchat has proposed an alternative to the current wording on the issue being discussed in the caliphate talk page. Please could you provide your thoughts on the matter there. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the four editors have agreed on the removal of disputed content as there are no sources which support it. thank you for helping in the discussion.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottoman Algeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agha. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I formally request that you apologize to user:M.Bitton for having suspected him of being a sockpuppet. That SPI has cleared him, and he's still hurt by it. He says it won't change anything, but I feel it's worth a try. DS (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some coaxing and cajoling, I got him to trim out the accusatory parts from his apology. Good enough? DS (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemsdine-badouri (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ...a discussion which closed with C-b being blocked and the SPI being reopened. WP:BOOMERANG, so no need to worry. Bencherlite^Talk 20:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hilalian dialects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Omar-toons reported by User:Kaiyr (Result: ). The other party claims you were edit warring at Languages of Morocco. You may respond if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Central Asian Arabic

added a link pointing to Khorasan

Jebli Arabic

added a link pointing to Berber

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've re-opened the SPI you started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghassul. You'll probably spot something that I've missed. :-) Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omar-toons, you may have noticed or not, I started an investigation on Asilah1981 after the Carlstak SPI. I confess that before spotting irregular behaviour and intervening on the Morisco article (dodgy summary lines, removal of perceived inconvenient content/sources, etc.), do not know what was happening there, or who the editors were. I urge you to go through my evidence and participate by adding what you may know at Asilah SPI. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moroccan Arabic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chaouia and Gharb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western Morocco Arabic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gharb. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any more international schools in Morocco? I started Template:International schools in Morocco. You can add some more to the list if you want. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not quite related to Morocco, do you know where a list of Spanish international schools and/or their websites are? I would like to know which cities in Europe and Latin America have Spanish schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Hello,

There is a link to "Centros en el Exterior" on https://www.educacion.gob.es/centros/home.do

Regards :-)

--Omar-toons (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barghawata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamesna. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am writing this due to your recent edit at Template:Caliphate. Just as it has now been fixed in other main articles on Wikipedia including Ottoman Caliphate, the Ottomans started claiming to Caliphate from the reign of Murad I. The other claim i.e. 1517 (Selim I) was unsourced. We should not use unsourced info on Wikipedia. Just because Ottomans were not Arabs does not make them unworthy of being caliphs when we have sources that they were accepted as caliphs. Khestwol (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Khestwol,

This issue was already discussed on Talk:Caliphate#Ottoman Caliphate and you didn't reach any consensus in favor of the edit you made.

Once a new consensus is found, you can then edit the article according to you point of view ; however, without consensus, editing articles that way is disruptive.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you should have objected to it in that section, or on talk pages. Edit-warring is not a good option. Khestwol (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I wasn't the only one to object.

Btw, I was the one who added dates to the article and now I realize that it was not a good idea, now I removed them (as suggested by Neil on the talk).

--Omar-toons (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is good. The dates were a bit problematic, I agree. Khestwol (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we also remove the dates from the template. Then we may have a consensus.