###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q123689937: Q123689937 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) This is not a real administrative entity (established by a State or a recognized institution). There are no recognized entities that should have this instance, except the ones established by the Moroccan State, which should have region of Morocco (Q845643) . The disputed nature of the entities where Q123689937 is used ( Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra (Q19951088) and Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab (Q21235104) ), can be expressed through other properties.
-- Ideophagous ( talk ) 00:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC) @ Koavf In which database or administrative system is this concept used or defined? If it's not formally defined in such a system, then it's not an administrative territorial entity (Q56061) . Note the description: territorial entity for administration purposes, with or without its own local government , as well as the property part of (P361) => hierarchy of administrative territorial entities (Q4057633) . You could argue for "geographic region of Western Sahara", but it's pointless to have this item only for two entities, when the same idea can be captured by simply using location properties and such. Furthermore, the two aformentioned regions are only defined with their names and borders within the Moroccan administrative system. Is SADR officially dividing Western Sahara in the exact same way with the same borders and names? Ideophagous ( talk ) 09:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC) They are not. — Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) I see no point in repeating what was discussed ad nauseam, including on the admin's board. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) They are not. — Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) They are not. — Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary). Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam, including on the admin's board (in a discussion that was started by you, in case you've forgotten). M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC) As a matter of reminder, this item has been created out of thin air amid the discussion you are referring too (in case you've forgotten your work). Reda benkhadra ( talk ) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC) The item in question is valid and has been mentioned in that discussion (involving multiple admins). In other words, this rfd is an abuse of process. M.Bitton ( talk ) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) As a matter of reminder, this item has been created out of thin air amid the discussion you are referring too (in case you've forgotten your work). Reda benkhadra ( talk ) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC) The item in question is valid and has been mentioned in that discussion (involving multiple admins). In other words, this rfd is an abuse of process. M.Bitton ( talk ) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) As a matter of reminder, this item has been created out of thin air amid the discussion you are referring too (in case you've forgotten your work). Reda benkhadra ( talk ) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC) The item in question is valid and has been mentioned in that discussion (involving multiple admins). In other words, this rfd is an abuse of process. M.Bitton ( talk ) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) @ Herstamp : The item is unreferenced. So what "serious and publicly available references" are you talking about exactly? -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC) ' @ Herstamp : I agree. Here are the sources: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . There are others, but these are more than enough. M.Bitton ( talk ) 03:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC) @ Herstamp : The item is unreferenced. So what "serious and publicly available references" are you talking about exactly? -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC) ' @ Herstamp : The item is unreferenced. So what "serious and publicly available references" are you talking about exactly? -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC) ' @ M.Bitton : What that article specifically references is "the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region in occupied Western Sahara", not "a region" in occupied Western Sahara." I'm sure you get the difference. This entry isn't for Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab. What is for is an undefined, unnamed "region" of Western Sahara. Everywhere has "regions" though. So I'm sure you can find any number of articles discussing "regions" of any location on earth. That's not really the point or what I was referring to when I said there wasn't any references. Regardless, you can't just create a vague entry for every undefined region in the world because some places have regions. Be my guest and create one for the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region or whatever though. But "region of Western Sahara" is totally meaningless. It's literally just the Western Sahara. That is the region. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 05:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC) @ Adamant1 : you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . M.Bitton ( talk ) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) @ M.Bitton : What that article specifically references is "the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region in occupied Western Sahara", not "a region" in occupied Western Sahara." I'm sure you get the difference. This entry isn't for Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab. What is for is an undefined, unnamed "region" of Western Sahara. Everywhere has "regions" though. So I'm sure you can find any number of articles discussing "regions" of any location on earth. That's not really the point or what I was referring to when I said there wasn't any references. Regardless, you can't just create a vague entry for every undefined region in the world because some places have regions. Be my guest and create one for the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region or whatever though. But "region of Western Sahara" is totally meaningless. It's literally just the Western Sahara. That is the region. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 05:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC) @ Adamant1 : you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . M.Bitton ( talk ) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) @ Adamant1 : you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . M.Bitton ( talk ) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) @ M.Bitton : What that article specifically references is "the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region in occupied Western Sahara", not "a region" in occupied Western Sahara." I'm sure you get the difference. This entry isn't for Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab. What is for is an undefined, unnamed "region" of Western Sahara. Everywhere has "regions" though. So I'm sure you can find any number of articles discussing "regions" of any location on earth. That's not really the point or what I was referring to when I said there wasn't any references. Regardless, you can't just create a vague entry for every undefined region in the world because some places have regions. Be my guest and create one for the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region or whatever though. But "region of Western Sahara" is totally meaningless. It's literally just the Western Sahara. That is the region. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 05:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC) @ Adamant1 : you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . M.Bitton ( talk ) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) @ Adamant1 : you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . M.Bitton ( talk ) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . @ Adamant1 : you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . M.Bitton ( talk ) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton ( talk ) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton ( talk ) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming.  -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" . Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. -- Adamant1 ( talk ) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton ( talk ) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC) "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" . "The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro . Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong" .