Amar Al Djazairi

June 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Algeria, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka thanks for your message, not at all my contribution is backed by a scientific article published by Science (which is a world class scientific reference) and the source is already used in the Wikipage of Algeria. Please, take the time to check it. Amar Al Djazairi (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka Sahnouni; et al. (14 December 2018). "1.9-million- and 2.4-million-year-old artifacts and stone tool–cutmarked bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria". Science. 362 (6420): 1297–1301. Amar Al Djazairi (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka Quote from the source "Here we report older stone artifacts and cutmarked bones excavated from two nearby deposits at Ain Boucherit estimated to ~1.9 Ma ago, and the older to ~2.4 Ma ago. Hence, the Ain Boucherit evidence shows that ancestral hominins inhabited the Mediterranean fringe in northern Africa much earlier than previously thought." Amar Al Djazairi (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka Thanks opened it for discussion. Actually, I was addressing the comments and putting it back, not sound it unilaterally. but you're right the Talk mechanism is more effective. Amar Al Djazairi (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)