User talk:Imteghren

September 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Jebala people. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask how my sourced addition to its regional history which directly did effect the jbala region under the unclear clarifications before it within the page falls under original research / novel syntheses . While the returned addition of the Nekor emirate which did not pretain to the Jbala historically as a people or even geographically. And the addition of the "The Rif musicians, who belong to a socially and occupational inferior class" which does not pretain to Jbala people and their music. Does not fall under novel syntheses if not straight up harmfull information. Instead of having this adressed initially within either the edit note or talk option directly, the contrubition was reverted with no additional context upon after now a warning for supposed edit warring.

In case of no resolution. Let's in the future with any new addition cite proper reasoning within the revert/edit and keep in mind the Civility warnings. Thank you Imteghren (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Tétouan. Skitash (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tangier, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:27, 19 September 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for being a supposed sock puppet account. Neither am I related to any previous account and neither have I been informed of my reason for warnings. The only rational I can think of is if I share a IP with a previous blocked user? I have been warned of disruptive editing for adding context to a history page on a people with sources provided, which was a case of debate. After the warning I addressed the initial user as to why I was warned. Upon no reply, I have afterward been given 2 additional warnings by the same user on unrelated topics. Both for adding the government names on regional cities in northern Morocco. Once again with no additional comment as to why. After seeing these warnings I decided to take a step back and see if I might just disengage from this topic as it was clearly a disagreement gone wrong. And how one user with a disagreement can multi warn someone new to this site without interacting with them. Just within 2 days the same user came back, changed my talk page and accused me of being a sockpuppet. Once again with no proof provided on the case. Besides a disagreement on his end which was unadressed. Imteghren (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2024 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I've read the guide to appeal. The issue surrounds an accusation of being a sock puppet account. I believe this is a mistake. I never had any previous account on Wikipedia nor did I try or want to engage with Wikipedia disruptively. I entered Wikipedia because of a personal interest in history, architecture, and populations. Now I can understand being against the behavior of sock puppets and the like. As they do disrupt honest work within articles. However, I do not believe I fall into this category. I looked into the account I am accused of sock puppeting. Zeblade12. The user was banned in March. Had an issue of personal attacks. We do not have a similar way of speaking at all. From what I can tell he was not a native Dutch speaker either or had edited his user page. The only thing I can see us having in common is having once done an edit to add the Moroccan government Tifinagh text to cities. Even in this, we engaged with different regions/cities. This user seems to be engaged with Middle Morocco (spoke about Casablanca and Agadir). I engaged with northern Morocco / the Jebala people. A region I am personally more familiar with. I also do not believe there is a technical issue of my being a sockpuppet account and I am ok with showing IP or any other evidence to disproof this. Imteghren (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've read the guide to appeal. The issue surrounds an accusation of being a sock puppet account. I believe this is a mistake. I never had any previous account on Wikipedia nor did I try or want to engage with Wikipedia disruptively. I entered Wikipedia because of a personal interest in history, architecture, and populations. Now I can understand being against the behavior of sock puppets and the like. As they do disrupt honest work within articles. However, I do not believe I fall into this category. 

I looked into the account I am accused of sock puppeting. Zeblade12. The user was banned in March. Had an issue of personal attacks. We do not have a similar way of speaking at all. From what I can tell he was not a native Dutch speaker either or had edited his user page. The only thing I can see us having in common is having once done an edit to add the Moroccan government Tifinagh text to cities. Even in this, we engaged with different regions/cities. This user seems to be engaged with Middle Morocco (spoke about Casablanca and Agadir). I engaged with northern Morocco / the Jebala people. A region I am personally more familiar with. I also do not believe there is a technical issue of my being a sockpuppet account and I am ok with showing IP or any other evidence to disproof this.  [[User:Imteghren|Imteghren]] ([[User talk:Imteghren#top|talk]]) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've read the guide to appeal. The issue surrounds an accusation of being a sock puppet account. I believe this is a mistake. I never had any previous account on Wikipedia nor did I try or want to engage with Wikipedia disruptively. I entered Wikipedia because of a personal interest in history, architecture, and populations. Now I can understand being against the behavior of sock puppets and the like. As they do disrupt honest work within articles. However, I do not believe I fall into this category. 

I looked into the account I am accused of sock puppeting. Zeblade12. The user was banned in March. Had an issue of personal attacks. We do not have a similar way of speaking at all. From what I can tell he was not a native Dutch speaker either or had edited his user page. The only thing I can see us having in common is having once done an edit to add the Moroccan government Tifinagh text to cities. Even in this, we engaged with different regions/cities. This user seems to be engaged with Middle Morocco (spoke about Casablanca and Agadir). I engaged with northern Morocco / the Jebala people. A region I am personally more familiar with. I also do not believe there is a technical issue of my being a sockpuppet account and I am ok with showing IP or any other evidence to disproof this.  [[User:Imteghren|Imteghren]] ([[User talk:Imteghren#top|talk]]) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've read the guide to appeal. The issue surrounds an accusation of being a sock puppet account. I believe this is a mistake. I never had any previous account on Wikipedia nor did I try or want to engage with Wikipedia disruptively. I entered Wikipedia because of a personal interest in history, architecture, and populations. Now I can understand being against the behavior of sock puppets and the like. As they do disrupt honest work within articles. However, I do not believe I fall into this category. 

I looked into the account I am accused of sock puppeting. Zeblade12. The user was banned in March. Had an issue of personal attacks. We do not have a similar way of speaking at all. From what I can tell he was not a native Dutch speaker either or had edited his user page. The only thing I can see us having in common is having once done an edit to add the Moroccan government Tifinagh text to cities. Even in this, we engaged with different regions/cities. This user seems to be engaged with Middle Morocco (spoke about Casablanca and Agadir). I engaged with northern Morocco / the Jebala people. A region I am personally more familiar with. I also do not believe there is a technical issue of my being a sockpuppet account and I am ok with showing IP or any other evidence to disproof this.  [[User:Imteghren|Imteghren]] ([[User talk:Imteghren#top|talk]]) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}