User talk:Askelaadden

I've seen that you are interesting in north african history so I have a request for you. Could you give a look at the talk in zirid dynasty page about the capital. I want to see some third opinion about the topic. If you finished reading my request you are free to delet it.This would be very much appreciated PS : if you don't wan't to wright anything in that highly controversial page you are free to give your reply on my personal talk page. Sss2sss (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Marinid Sultanate, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

The article cites "Strategic Survey" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mention in Edit summary , UN nor FAR mention anything about Moroccan casualties , You are welcome to show me UN or MINURSO source saying FAR took casualties , or only side claiming casualties exist is Front , undoing editing because it is against your POV is against Wikipedia policy , if possible don't let happen again

Hello, The International Crisis Group is renowned for being a quality independent source of fact. Trying to censor it is therefore POV-push.

Regards, --Askelaadden (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , International Crisis Group mention on their rapport that they use "Crisis Group telephone interviews, MINURSO official, November-December 2020 ", checking on actual MINURSO statement from the same period , no mention of casualties ^[1] this continue into march ^[2] , "continues to receive unconfirmed reports of sporadic firing across the berm." If you manage to find MINURSO official saying that they were report of 2 casualties between November-December 2020 , you would be proving the claim of International Crisis Group , but if Not , then it is not simply true , and they are citing MINURSO as source here . trying to defend false information is POV-push , correcting that isn't : Regards, -- 01:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What you are doing is a

WP:OR

in an attempt to discredit the International Crisis Group. Wikipedia doesn't work that way.

Otherwise ICG is talking about telephone interviews they conducted with sources in the UN mission MINURSO, not official reports.

Finally, the fact that you want to impose the point of view of the Moroccan armed forces by censoring the International Crisis Group is POV-Pushing. By the way, here is how the :UNHCR describes the Crisis Group: "The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) is an independent, non-profit, multinational organization, with over 80 staff on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict. ICG's approach is grounded in field research. Teams of political analysts are located within or close by countries at risk of outbreak, escalation or recurrence of violent conflict. Based on information and assessments from the field, ICG produces regular analytical reports containing practical recommendations targeted at key international decision-takers" ([1]).

Regards,--Askelaadden (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is difference between following source claim and discrediting it , taking source because it does support your POV and claiming the opposition discredit it because they simply follow claim is

, not other way around , and as you said wikipedia doesn't work that way . only way we can know for certain is about casualties and reality on ground is through MINURSO , not 3rd party sources , and it is not like MINURSO doesn't rapport casualties when they happen , as example , MINURSO was notified of death of head of gendarmerie of front few days ago , ignoring this fact and choosing source that you like is POV-Pushing , claiming the opposition doesn't have right to follow the information to sources is . and simply following MINURSO official rapport on ground isn't pushing point of view of the Moroccan armed forces , unless you actually believe POV of front that say MINURSO work with occupation army , they are neutral party in this conflict . We have neutral party on ground that is quite capable of reporting any ceasefire to UN , so far their rapport do not bypass harassment fire , ignoring this fact is POV-pushing

Regards, -- 01:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABIDALAA (talk • contribs)

Hello ABIDALAA, The fact that you want to censor a serious, independent, reputable source is POV pushing, that's undeniable. However, you are free to add other serious sources if you have any alongside the CRISIS GROUP source. Regards, --Askelaadden (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , i don't think asking you to use MINURSO as source is POV pushing , unless you subscribe to idea that they are same as Moroccan royal army , and they both Conspire to hide the truth casualties of this supposed "war" , something that is ridiculous this situation . all i am asking is to use MINURSO since it is neutral party on ground , and they hadn't yet confirm or announce any Moroccan casualties . this is very simple , without mental gymnastics , using MINURSO as source isn't POV , claiming that MINURSO doesn't rapport Moroccan casualties is POV , if you cannot provide any confirmation from MINURSO on those casualties , then number is disputed . Regards, --ABIDALAA (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you have a source from MINURSO about the number of casualties, feel free to add it into the article.

Otherwise, please do not censor other serious and independant sources like you did because you don't like them or because they don't support your POV.

Regards, --Askelaadden (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , i already done that , both MINURSO Press Briefing from 17 NOVEMBER 2020 to 1 MARCH 2021 , and both have same conclusion , unconfirmed reports of sporadic firing across the berm , not bombing , nor raids inside Southern Morocco , but Rather sporadic harassment fire , ^[3] , ^[4] , no mention of casualties . and i am not the one suggesting MINURSO and Royal Moroccan army trying to hide Moroccans Casualties so i can be consider pushing my POV , right ? ignoring existing of MINURSO and citing them for things they never said using 3rd party source . since we both on agreement here to use MINURSO we should use the other draft that only rely on MINURSO Press Briefing rather then calling POV Regards ABIDALAA (talk 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As you said and as the sources specify, the number of casualties is not revealed by MINURSO. We must therefore keep the Crisis Group source.

--Askelaadden (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not revealed" applied there is casualties, as this is matter of dispute here, MINURSO hasn't mentioned any casualties, but rather harrassment sporadic fire , nothing more or less , as they hadn't confirmed Crisis group source , going on conclusion they are hiding numbers or refusing to revealed them is

. Regards --ABIDALAA (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Exactly, casualties numbers are unrevealed by the MINURSK so we must stick to Crisis Group numbers until the MINURSO reveals their numbers. Regards, --Askelaadden (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Now you aren't even trying, that's , you are suggesting MINURSO hiding casualties , same as what Front claim . I know you are unlikely to be convinced , so i would refer this conversation in talk page for the subject Regards --ABIDALAA (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you wanted me to explain why I reverted the last edits. I didn't explain it because I thought it was clear.

there is no reason to delete the origin of the zirids from kabylia. It is documented by all of the historians thzt's why I've restored it. You can clearly see it mentionned in encyclopedia britannica so why not on wikipedia ? https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zirid-Dynasty

the addition of the category "history of algeria" is unncessary because it would trigger other categories wich would need to be added like history of spain (grenada), morocco, tunisia,malta... So there is no need to specifically chose one over other categories

Hi thanks for creating Rif revolt which I’ve just reviewed. If you ever need help with anything please leave a message on my talk page. All the best Mccapra (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi, Thanks for your message and for the help offered !! All the best ! --Askelaadden (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to know what you think of my work, on the subject  ?

KarimAohh

Hi @KarimAohh:,

Very good work on the List of wars involving Algeria page. However, there is some stylistic work to be done to make the list more organized as it can be on the fr.wp.

Regards ! --Askelaadden (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello can i know why when algeria adds roman history and fatimid caliphate to its history its fine but when Morocco adds almohad and almoravid wars to its history it instantly gets deleted Rayooni (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Askelaadden:,

how are you doing? I’d like to have your opinion "List of wars involving Algeria" it risks having a publishing war

KarimAohh (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

If the IPs continue changing it without source, request protection at

]

@

Hemanthah: Thanks for your advice, I will definitely do that next time. --Askelaadden (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Zirids History

Ok hello, ny friend i guess you love talking about "History" of Algeria... The map is very wrong since its from Fatimids Caliphate not The Zirids... also its look like Paint more than map Zirides sous les Fatimides.PNG Also the are a lot of nonsenses like the Moroccan Slaves...etc. The most important think it was Tunisia (Ifriqiya) Berber Dynasty IbnTashfin97 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IbnTashfin97, the map is well sourced and was agreed on the talk page of Zirid Dynasty by contributors. --Askelaadden (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I came across some sources that might interest you.

• “Mais en 1692 Moulay Ismaël battu par les Turcs dut signer à Oujda un traité qui reconnaissait leur domination jusqu'à la Moulouya . Celle - ci devait durer plus de cent ans . En 1795 le Sultan Moulay Sliman envoya une expédition qui”^[5]

• “Enfin les Turcs , que les Français ont remplacés en Algérie , ont possédé la rive droite de la Moulouya et Oudjda jusqu'en 1795 , époque à laquelle ils n'ont fait aucune opposition à l'accaparement de cette région par Mouley Sliman”^[6]

• “Fondó à la fin du xo S. , Oudjda appartint successivement aux Almoravides et aux Almohades , et sut disputé entre les Mérinides et les Abd - el - Ouadites , puis entre les chériss saadiens et les Turcs d'Alger ; ces derniers en furent de 1554 à 1647 , de 1672 à 1680 , de 1692 à 1795”^[7]

• ‪“‬en 1551 les armées marocaines au - delà de la Moulouya , fleuve qui s'imposait dès lors comme frontière”^[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabz15 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]