Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:49, 18 June 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Berber People. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Misplaced Pages:Sandbox for test edits. Please use the Talk:Berber people to discuss your feelings, and share any information you feel is relevant to the subject.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irashtar (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Irashtar on that. The right way to deal with material you find questionable is to tag it for needing a citation, using the {{fact}} or {{cn}} templates. (Use whichever you like. They both produce this: ; "cn" stands for "citation needed".) If, after a reasonable period -- a good month, at least, I'd say -- no citation is forthcoming, then deletion might be in order, but even then you should act with care, and best would leave a note on the talk-page about the material and your plan to remove it unless it is referenced. Be especially careful with material that is likely to be contentious. Sometimes small, unannounced deletions are okay. Summarily blanking a whole article, though, or even a whole paragraph of an article, on the grounds that you believe it to be biased is not okay.
From your edit-summaries, I gather that, firstly, you are under the misconceptions that if the Berbers are indigenous then they are "Black" (as being "African"), which would make the same true of the region's Arabs to the extent that they are descended from Berbers, and that, secondly, you find this unpalatable. As to the first, it's nought but a silly notion of "Afrocentrists", not taken seriously otherwise. In other words the Berbers are "White", and being indigenous to a part of Africa does not make them "Black". As to the second, you may not edit Misplaced Pages according to what ideas you find palatable or not.
The less charitable interpretation of your actions and edit-summaries is that you are merely a trolling vandal. Be warned that if you make further undiscussed blankings of this kind, now that you've been warned against it, they will be treated as vandalism, and so will this first round, in hindsight. If you persist, you will be blocked.
-- Lonewolf BC 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"to the extent that they are descended from berbers?" this is really quite amusing. As a native, the berbers are quite a distinct people apart and most certainly white in origin. I have no patience to edict this rubbish of a project at the moment, but will in future. And these article are being edited and hawked by afro-centric eccentric crazies who believe that Sudan is part of North Africa and that Egyptian civilization should be considred sub-saharan. Lonewolf, I need you to cite sources in making such sweeping statements.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(I've moved the just below to here from being mistakenly put on my thereby-created and soon-to-be-deleted-again userpage. -- Lonewolf BC 07:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Dear lonewolf,

you are making an inaccurate and sweeping statement by stating that all Arabs descend from Berbes in North Africa, a reality that all naatives know to be false. In fact, you are contradicting the article itseld, as the number of Berbers is listed, and is miniscule in comparison with the populations of those countries. Certain biased and unrepresentative sources are often cited, and findings based on a small group of people from Mauritania are then aapplied to the vast region (more than twice as large as europe) that is north africa. This prroblematic practice is not in keeping with wikipedia's five pillars. The first two pillars are blatantly violated: To remind you : "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Misplaced Pages is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Misplaced Pages is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory, nor is Misplaced Pages a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively."

None of the material on the pages that I've tried to clean up and make more neutral and objective is encyclopedic but rather is subjective. One person's opinion, Shahada, is presented as fact. this cannot be the case, if wikipedia is to be taken seriously. Thank you..and if you wish to talk please let me know Mariam83 05:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR and Tunisia

I thought you should look at the above policy: you seem to have contravened it by reverting others' edits 4 times in 24 hours (at Berber people), but I won't report you as you haven't had a warning about it yet.

On another issue, it seems you're misunderstanding the sources that you're deleting in Tunisia (please don't delete sources: also the one you supplied doesn't contradcit the one from National Geographic). It's talking genetics, not identity. It-twansa 'arab, mathammach chekk! And also, what you're adding about Tunisian Arabic probably mainly belongs there, rather than in this article. Some things you're adding there also seem to be inaccuarate: qahwa (apart from any endings) is the same in Tunsi and 'arabi. Inshallah nitfahhmu. Bouha 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)