User talk:26oo

Puntland Maritime Police Force
I have reverted your re-addition of the twisted, non-neutral material to this article. I will speak bluntly: things have changed around here (or at least, regarding Horn articles), and I have no intention of allowing material which twists the facts to be readded to these articles. Do this three times and you will be reported to AN/I (or blocked, as the template warns). Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Buckshot06, please do not threaten me. You are making bold changes before referring to the talk page. If you want to report me to AN/I then I am sure you have your reasons. However, please refer to the talk page. You've done the same with another article without even carrying out the changes you said you intended to do i.e moving content to more appropriate articles. 26oo (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your note 26oo. I'm not trying to threaten you, but I'm not going to let your behaviour slide past. As you may be away, such bold edits are formally endorsed by WP:BRD. I did not appreciate that there were other users prepared to take the WP:BURDEN of reintroducing tainted material back into the encyclopedia. Right now I am working with an editor who may return a little more, if this kind of POVpushing is removed. Now, as regards Corruption in Somalia, the tendentious material about a new information system in the Somali MoFin, which I removed, I realised did not actually have a home. Given Somalia's heavily personalised governance, should we create Ministry of Finance (Somalia) or Minister of Finance (Somalia)? What would be your opinion? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article you are warning me about had a longstanding edit until you made these section blankings. Your first edit on the article is a blanking so I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say I am reintroducing tainted material. Past run-ins you've had with out users do not concern me nor the well being of the encyclopedia. As for the Corruption in Somalia article there is a Ministry of Finance and Planning (Somalia) article which could perhaps be moved to Ministry of Finance (Somalia) given the frequent revamping of ministries. 26oo (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN specifically says that the editor (you) who reinserts text takes responsibility for that text. Now, most of it is uncontentious, though very vaguely connected, and for now, I've readded it. I'd invite you to explain at the talk page why you believe that unconnected references to UNSCRs 1772, 1976, 2015, and 2093, plus details about EUCAP Nestor, have any place in the article, because there are no direct connections to the PMPF.
 * If the wellbeing of the encyclopedia doesn't concern you, then you're WP:NOTHERE and I would encourage you to consider very carefully whether you should be participating here at all.
 * If there's a MoFP article, that would be the best place for the financial information system paragraph. I'll go and add it there. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved the material to the MoFP page, because it should have been there in the first place - it's all about the inner procedures of the Finance Ministry!! I'll also just go and set up MoF(S) as a redirect - useful even if there is another ministerial reshuffle of responsibilities. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Economy of Ethiopia page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665716467 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F665716467%7CEconomy of Ethiopia%5D%5D Ask for help])

AN/I: Violation of WP:YESPOV, WP:NOTHERE
Due violations of WP:UNDUE, WP:YESPOV, and WP:NOTHERE, I have just filed an AN/I complaint against you. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you link the AN/I? 26oo (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I can, but are you aware you just can type WP:ANI into the top box on the right and then just scroll down to the bottom of the page, and you'll find it? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why I didn't get a notification but I did, thanks anyway.26oo (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 26oo. I've come along to say a word because you don't appear, on the AN/I page, to understand what the problem is with what you're doing. If you take a look at WP:NPOV, there's a subsection called WP:YESPOV. That paragraph, reduced to its essentials, says editors '..should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view." Do you understand that what you're doing on the PMPF page is promoting one point of view over another, and trying to remove material which disagrees with that point of view? I hope I'm making myself clear. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional note: this seems to have occurred in the past as well, as with re Galkacyo. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * in addition to a block for edit warring in 2013: Buckshot06 (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

'''I did not introduce anything. You did''', hence;


 * United Nations bodies have questioned both the mission and legality of the force. and United Nations Security Council, Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea pursuant to Security Council Resolution 2002 (2011), 27 June 2012, S/2012/545 1 According to a UN working group, its chain of command is not clear, as its legal basis in Somali or Puntland law is not documented, and it appears to report only to the President of Puntland.2

It was done in bad faith as demonstrated in the ANI and can be witnessed on the talk pages and your history of edits. That's why you were hostile from the beginning. The whole issue here is the UNDUE material you've introduced, not anything I've introduced cause there's isn't any. You are the one promoting one POV namely the UN, it's all in that quote. The link you provided from 2011 has no resemblance with the current situation as I am not introducing anything. I have a good track record on Wikipedia, allegations of YESPOV, Middayexpress and fake signature is not the way forward. The shocked and chagrined reaction to a typo by you and colleague Cordless Larry is an obvious sideshow but even they were amiable in resolving it on the talk page. Please do refer to the topic talk page on how to balance the article. 26oo (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The only rule about who introduced anything is WP:BURDEN, and you're not arguing that. "Bad faith" does not refer to introducing sourced material from WP:Reliable Sources, which is what I did. Regarding UNDUE, you do not appear to have read that you cannot promote one point of view over another - which is WP:YESPOV. UNDUE does not supercede that. The UN's POV is part of the complete information on the topic, and therefore is legitimate to include in the article. The topic talkpage is not our rule book - our five pillars, including NPOV, which includes YESPOV, are. Please do not try and remove WP:RS material again. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Buckshot06 (talk). I'll obviously have to remove the undue POV you've introduced after the section blanking. If you are not willing to balance it, I'm afraid it has no place in the summary of an article. That's my point here. I have no problem with the verifiability of the material, just it's undue weight. Please refer to the talk page on this discussion, it shouldn't be on my talk page. Or the ANI if you require. 26oo (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not undue, it's more COMPLETENESS OF THE PICTURE: it is more of a whole picture This is what YESPOV means. This is not just about one article, it's about your whole understanding of what Wikipedia's rules are. You cannot remove a source, if it's a reliable source, just because you don't like it. I've quoted the relevant rules to you over and over: please read them!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll explain again. I have no problem with the inclusion of the material unless it is summarized per article. It is in the introduction after all. You would be right if it was in the article but that's not the case. However, it is also true we must stay away from creating a false sense of equality and that's not what I am striving to achieve here.


 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. 26oo (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I've explained at the talk page, reliable sources in this case - THIRDPARTY - is more likely to be independent sources like the Groups of Experts. Criticisms - like the Puntland Govt's denial, are expected from parties more involved in the case.... Buckshot06 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And as explained in the talk page, the credibility of the United Nations' Monitoring group was damaged. It's POV is not the only one that should be included in the summary of the article. There is no veracity to your claims that it is the only reliable source, that's you ironically pushing YESPOV. 26oo (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the editors debating the issue on the talkpage is that the United Nations has far more credibility than non-THIRDPARTY bodies like the Puntland Govt or Saracen. Those people have axes to grind, while the Monitoring Group is much more independent. As User:HOA Monitor said, the Security Council, with the highest de jure responsibility for international peace and security on the planet, has repeatedly extended their mandate. In this case, the Monitoring Group is a very good WP:THIRDPARTY source, and is why those documents have far more credibility than Erik Prince or similar. But if you're so worried about the Monitoring Group's reports, why don't you follow the accepted process and take this to the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard? If you're not going to do so, then the consensus at the talkpage stands, because no challenge has been made, in the proper form, to the Monitoring Group's reports. I'm also not claiming that they are the only reliable source - note the local webnews article that I linked that corroborates that the PMPF blocked Abdiweli Ali Gaas campaigning for the Puntland presidency in Bosaso (Somalia: Saracen Trained Forces Surround the Home of Former Somali PM in Bosaso, accessed June 2015). Buckshot06 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Buckshot06, I am not tackling the verifiability of the text, just how it was summed up. It alone is a problem. The United Nations' POV which is negative and has been questioned yet the one you've been pushing since day 1 even as you were threatening me has had its credibility questioned. It doesn't sum up the article nor include the PL response. You are taking allegations because they are negative and that's what you want to portray given the strategic input and denying an accurate summary to include responses as in the article. The campaigning of an official was blocked has no comparison to the responses to the 2013 Somalia cyclone or the humanitarian rescue missions as per content. The length and content of the article do not sum up with the introduction. I'm not sure how many times this can be repeated. 26oo (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, two things. (1) We can easily rewrite the introduction, but intros are usually rewritten once the text has settled down, and HOA Monitor and I have a great deal of additions and changes to make. (2) In my view, the thing that's undue here is the ritual denials from Puntland. Can you give me any response at all to any of the UN Monitoring Group's details? Can you explain, in detail, any reason why they would be inaccurate? The Puntland response seems more along the lines of ad hominum attacks, trying to cover up things they would have a reason to hide, than any real thing that, as I said on the article talkpage, makes sense. The UN view may be negative, but in this case it makes much more sense than anything the involved parties would say. (3) I would say the entire focus of the force - internal security and supporting the old President of Puntland - is much more important than specific small-scale deployments, especially since the PMPF tried to stop the campaigning of someone who eventually became the regional President!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether the United Nations position makes sense to you makes no matter. If you are geniuine about rewriting the introduction then it should be as it was before you inserted your UNDUE POV and I will proceed to remove it until such time. Any additional details are in the article including 'politically motivated' allegations on the part of the Monitoring report. I've already posted a link regarding the credibility being called into questions; allegations but no less than those posed by the United Nations which as you know can't appear as the only part in the introduction. If you have a great addition and changes to make, then make them and rewrite the introduction, that is the way it's normally done. Otherwise, summarize it as per now.


 * If the humanitarian rescue of hostages and the response to a devastating cyclone is small-scale and you want to focus on the alleged hindering of a presidential candidate, then I am afraid we have a long way to go. The contents of the article goes to show that you want to push the most amount of negative information while I want to balance the introduction. There is much and more to work in in the body of the article. Also a third opinion was given when HOA Monitor did the same bias edits. 26oo (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Somalinomics
"Somalinomics", hahaha! How much secrets were obtained ;)? AcidSnow (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah, it's a funny portmanteu. I'm not sure of any secrets other than the usual achievement ideology. 26oo (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * True, this was published in 2013 as well. But what exactly do you mean by the ideology? Anyways, if you're wandering about the surge in vandalism these past few day they are directed at me. AcidSnow (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any successful business would divulge their secrets. I meant that success was based on hard work rather than any other attributes, at least that's what the report concludes. As for the vandalism, I keep reverting them but they switch IPs. Could they be disgruntled users? 26oo (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now (I never read the report). I read in own article that many are jealous of the success of the Somalis as well is other foreigners. Anyways, it's possible that they are former users. However, according to one IP I encountered that was actually helpful, they linked to a discussion on Somalinet where several users despise us and plan to devalue this site. I believe that this is only the beginning, but when the range blocks begin it will probably end. AcidSnow (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was afraid it might be coordinated. Hopefully the administrators will issue IP blocks ASAP. 26oo (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They have begun to do so now. AcidSnow (talk)

Theyuusuf143
Since you dealt with him before I think you should check this out and give your thoughts on it. AcidSnow (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had run-ins with this editor. I'm certain they accused me of being a sockpuppet once because I reverted their disruptive edits. I'm not sure why they won't adhere to the consensus rule. 26oo (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that's just how some people are. AcidSnow (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV
Just to make things crystal clear 26oo after the discussion at the other talkpage, it is my strong belief that you are systematically violating Wikipedia's core principle of NPOV by your choice of sources, which display a heavy reliance on WP:COI sources rather than using WP:THIRDPARTY sources. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, good luck with that. 26oo (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not breech copyright with readding of copyright material in violation of WP:DCV and WP:Copyright as you did here. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah, the content was already in the article, I didn't introduce it and the edit is from 27 June. If you continue to follow me to articles you have never edited with harassment and previous threats, you will be reported. It's due to good faith I must warn you of this. This is wikihounding. 26oo (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your breech of policy is in regard to WP:BURDEN, which specifically states that the editor responsible for adding content (readding content in your case after Nick-D had copyright concerns with the text) is responsible for the content (and in this case copyright violation) that he adds. Thus I am protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia, in full conformance with policy and my administrator status, when I monitor your edits. Should you report this, I will have another opportunity to lay before the community my significant concerns with your breeches of WP:NPOV - your scorning of the reason for this encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:YESPOV, WP:CIVIL, your constant tendancy to argue minority sources in violation of WP:THIRDPARTY and constant editwarring to reintroduce them (disruptive editing). These concerns are shared by User:Cordless Larry and User:HOA Monitor, plus probably others. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, you've already cried wolf with the previous ANI, if you do have any concerns, please do report me. It's pretty tedious with the repeated threats. Just because you keep warning and threatening me doesn't mean you took a good faith step to resolving things, it just means you are attempting to appear responible. However with your constant WP:STALK, threats, coercion and previous history of canvassing, I have no doubt you will do your best to try and paint me in a bad light. Please report me if you find it necessary, enough with the soapboxing. 26oo (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of having to go to AN/I again, I would much prefer you to review, closely, WP:YESPOV and WP:NPOV and to change your behaviour. Discussing things on a talkpage is much less dramatic than just trying to punish you at AN/I. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Truly, you have "cried wolf". AcidSnow (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the user has yet to produce any edits to support this so-called POV. However, Buckshot06 did manage to revert unreferenced work to a non-existent article I removed last year. It is bordering on obsession at this point, in good faith will continue to focus on content creation as usual. 26oo (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, its best that he stops threatening us. AcidSnow (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not threatening Acidsnow. I am trying to convince you, 26oo, to take this seriously, in line with all the diffs I laid out at the last AN/I. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The diffs at the last ANI were bogus to say the least since I was the one who removed copyvio, dubious sources (Somalia Report), fixed the references and created a section with the UN allegations (see Puntland Maritime Police Force. Perhaps that's why the ANI never took off as I never removed things, just corrected them in line with the references. I must repeat however, unless you can produce diffs where I violate any rules, I must take your allegations with a grain of salt given your track record. Nonetheless, I thank you for this message. FYI, I've seen you threaten AcidSnow as well when were discussing an issue on his talk page. 26oo (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have just recently with baseless accusations. That AN/I completely failed as well when Nick asked you to support your accusations with diffs, something you opted not to do. I wonder why? AcidSnow (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Indeed, since we've both been threatened I think it may be that we are among the most active content creators on this small WikiProject but hopefully the hostility will come to an end now. 26oo (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baledogle Airfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Shabaab. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on Somali topics
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * Interesting. However you've already violated this rule. You keep introducing tampered text that is not in line with references. 26oo (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. Would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Proposed deletion of File:Wprojectpllogo.png


The file File:Wprojectpllogo.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused image, WikiProject is deleted."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Proposed deletion of File:JubbalandFlag.png


The file File:JubbalandFlag.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Superseded by c:Flag of Jubaland (Somalia).svg, incorrect colours."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 11:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)