User talk:MustafaO/Archive 1

{{Automatic archive navigator

February 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Haplogroup T-M184 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Haplogroup T-M184 was changed by MustafaO (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882975 on 2017-02-03T06:38:09+00:00.

February 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Haplogroup T-M184 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Haplogroup T-M184 was changed by MustafaO (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882975 on 2017-02-03T06:38:09+00:00.

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Haplogroup T-M184 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See 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. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Haplogroup T-M184 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See 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. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Borama 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See 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.

Please cease the edit war, Borama is a city within the de facto state of Somaliland. We can start a discussion in the article's talkpage if you have any objections, but constant edit-warring is not very productive, and risks your account getting blocked. Please put your effort in improving the article, for instance the lead image is not free-use and will eventually be deleted, find a better photograph that is in public domain to include in the article. Kzl55 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Borama 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See 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.

Please cease the edit war, Borama is a city within the de facto state of Somaliland. We can start a discussion in the article's talkpage if you have any objections, but constant edit-warring is not very productive, and risks your account getting blocked. Please put your effort in improving the article, for instance the lead image is not free-use and will eventually be deleted, find a better photograph that is in public domain to include in the article. Kzl55 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MustafaO. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! &mdash;  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 16:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MustafaO. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! &mdash;  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 16:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Makayl-Dheere) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Makayl-Dheere, MustafaO!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A useful addition to Wikipedia. The article needs to be included in some categories."

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Makayl-Dheere) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Makayl-Dheere, MustafaO!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A useful addition to Wikipedia. The article needs to be included in some categories."

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zeila District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Issa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Zeila_District check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Zeila_District?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zeila District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Issa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Zeila_District check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Zeila_District?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting your input
Hello I am requesting your input on this matter Banco de Sarapio (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting your input
Hello I am requesting your input on this matter Banco de Sarapio (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history at Balwo 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.62.28 (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history at Balwo 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.62.28 (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello MustafaO, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Cushitic peoples have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello MustafaO, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Cushitic peoples have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus at Dilla Massacre
Hello, I noticed you are active in Somali pages, I was wondering if you could come in as a neutral third party, and provide consensus on the page Dilla Massacre. The discussion is on going in the talk page, regarding if it was a massacre or not. Aqooni (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus at Dilla Massacre
Hello, I noticed you are active in Somali pages, I was wondering if you could come in as a neutral third party, and provide consensus on the page Dilla Massacre. The discussion is on going in the talk page, regarding if it was a massacre or not. Aqooni (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ogaden massacre 1988
I have created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_Massacre I would appreciate your help in enlarging the page with more sources and references. this page has a lot on the information about the massacres committed https://www.cja.org/downloads/Why%20Somalis%20Flee.pdf would appreciate if you help out by enlarging the page with the information from that source. The page needs to be improved a little and I think am gonna need help with it if you have additional scholarly sources or if you could better summarise the article I would appreciate if you can contribute also could you help out in adding the categories list for the article--Gashaamo (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok I will look into it. Thanks. I will try and help with referencing the work. MustafaO (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

ogaden massacre 1988
I have created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_Massacre I would appreciate your help in enlarging the page with more sources and references. this page has a lot on the information about the massacres committed https://www.cja.org/downloads/Why%20Somalis%20Flee.pdf would appreciate if you help out by enlarging the page with the information from that source. The page needs to be improved a little and I think am gonna need help with it if you have additional scholarly sources or if you could better summarise the article I would appreciate if you can contribute also could you help out in adding the categories list for the article--Gashaamo (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok I will look into it. Thanks. I will try and help with referencing the work. MustafaO (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somali Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dawa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Somali_Region check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Somali_Region?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'll be sure to check. MustafaO (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somali Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dawa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Somali_Region check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Somali_Region?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'll be sure to check. MustafaO (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg


The file File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, low quality"

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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg


The file File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, low quality"

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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg


The file File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, low quality"

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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg


The file File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, low quality"

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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ugaas Doodi.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ugaas Haji Dodi Robleh Nur.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ugaas Xaaji Doodi.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
User:Bbb23 I hope you are well and good. Could you please take a look at my talk page. I explained there why I feel that I shouldn't have been blocked. I would really appreciate and be grateful if you could take the time to review your decision. I do understand that you're extremely busy. I've acknowledged some accidental and completely innocent mistakes that I may have made but feel that my account, which has been active for many years with over a thousand contributions may not have deserved an outright ban. I do appreciate that you are following protocol, but if you could look and review my case again, I will be grateful to you. Thank you. MustafaO (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ST47

I created that account because I was blocked without a date of expiry and if this request fell through, I didn't want to be banished from Wikipedia after having made 1000+ edits. I didn't know these consequences. Isn't there a more lenient way if penalising an editor rather than having them not even be able to communicate to state their case properly after an effective ban? I share one network with another user. Does that necessarily mean it's sockpuppetry simply because you use the same IP address on devices? I stated that if that is not allowed then I understand and it will not happen again. Currently this is the only account that I have in addition to the one I created yesterday. Let it be deleted if I broke the rules. But I would appreciate a more lenient way of dealing with this issue for those like me who didn't know.MustafaO (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I invested heavily into this account and I contributed heavily to Wikipedia. I'm willing to do whatever it takes and accept any penalty and even have my history run through again. I didn't know and I was ignorant of some of the rules. I accept this and it is duly noted. I feel like I deserve another opportunity at least.MustafaO (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This account is confirmed to User:Cabdijimaale, User:Aqooni, and User:Ahmed Lafaciise. ST47 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ST47 Now I know that doing so breaks the rules. What can I do to rectify and fix the problem? I'm not Aqooni however. He lives in Canada, I am in Europe. We share the same network and used the same devices. As for Cabdijimaale, that was before I knew it was not allowed and the admins were courteous. They blocked that account but not this one. Ahmed Lafaciise was only created so I can open up a means of communication if this account is blocked indefinitely.MustafaO (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that I fully understand the rules. Is it possible to block all those accounts indefinitely and leave this one? The difference would be that know I understand. I guarantee something like this would never happen again. I have now understood. Before I didn't. I will be careful to reread the Wikipedia guidelines and make sure this never happens again. That's a guarantee.MustafaO (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
User:Bbb23 I hope you are well and good. Could you please take a look at my talk page. I explained there why I feel that I shouldn't have been blocked. I would really appreciate and be grateful if you could take the time to review your decision. I do understand that you're extremely busy. I've acknowledged some accidental and completely innocent mistakes that I may have made but feel that my account, which has been active for many years with over a thousand contributions may not have deserved an outright ban. I do appreciate that you are following protocol, but if you could look and review my case again, I will be grateful to you. Thank you. MustafaO (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ST47

I created that account because I was blocked without a date of expiry and if this request fell through, I didn't want to be banished from Wikipedia after having made 1000+ edits. I didn't know these consequences. Isn't there a more lenient way if penalising an editor rather than having them not even be able to communicate to state their case properly after an effective ban? I share one network with another user. Does that necessarily mean it's sockpuppetry simply because you use the same IP address on devices? I stated that if that is not allowed then I understand and it will not happen again. Currently this is the only account that I have in addition to the one I created yesterday. Let it be deleted if I broke the rules. But I would appreciate a more lenient way of dealing with this issue for those like me who didn't know.MustafaO (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I invested heavily into this account and I contributed heavily to Wikipedia. I'm willing to do whatever it takes and accept any penalty and even have my history run through again. I didn't know and I was ignorant of some of the rules. I accept this and it is duly noted. I feel like I deserve another opportunity at least.MustafaO (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This account is confirmed to User:Cabdijimaale, User:Aqooni, and User:Ahmed Lafaciise. ST47 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ST47 Now I know that doing so breaks the rules. What can I do to rectify and fix the problem? I'm not Aqooni however. He lives in Canada, I am in Europe. We share the same network and used the same devices. As for Cabdijimaale, that was before I knew it was not allowed and the admins were courteous. They blocked that account but not this one. Ahmed Lafaciise was only created so I can open up a means of communication if this account is blocked indefinitely.MustafaO (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that I fully understand the rules. Is it possible to block all those accounts indefinitely and leave this one? The difference would be that know I understand. I guarantee something like this would never happen again. I have now understood. Before I didn't. I will be careful to reread the Wikipedia guidelines and make sure this never happens again. That's a guarantee.MustafaO (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ughaz Haji Dodi Robleh.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ughaz Haji Dodi Robleh.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ughaz Haji Dodi Robleh.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ughaz Haji Dodi Robleh.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ughaz Robleh Nur.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ughaz Robleh Nur.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ughaz Robleh Nur.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ughaz Robleh Nur.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 30283
-- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 30283
-- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for an unblock, an explanation and an apology

 * I would not normally respond to unblock requests, but I am clarifying a few points since my name was brought up, and the editor has been very disruptive to the project. New sock accounts were confirmed and blocked as recent as yesterday, two of them registered within 20 minutes of one another , . Ignorance of socking guidelines very unlikely given that editor was citing MEAT not that long ago . Intent of disruptive editing very clear from late 2017/early 2018 . They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like any contributions made by User:Kzl55 would be unfair in this regard, he is not an administrator and there has been a history of editing disputes between myself and Kzl55 on many pages such as the Abdullahi Qarshe page, , , , also the Balwo page , , , , also the Abdi Sinimo page ], , , . There are many many more instances. He took advantage of the situation by reversing many edits done on some of the pages that I have contributed to already: . This same user invested a huge amount of time to secure the block takes effect . This should be noted. As for citing MEAT, that was relating to the deletion nomination page ONLY.MustafaO (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Ahmed Lafaciise has never sent an email through Special:EmailUser. ST47 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks, . Since the filter log is empty too, I wonder what else could have been meant by "to challenge the block and send a direct message to users, ST47 and Bbb23". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello

User:ST47 and User: ToBeFree, when I wrote: "I then created User: Ahmed Lafaciise to challenge the block..." What I meant was challenging the block was my initial intention and because of the fear that I lost my account for good, I made an intention to keep the new account and make it my main one. So I never went through with challenging it whatsoever. It was a mistake that I made. One that I fully regret. And I acknowledge fully what you've said.

I do recognise, understand and acknowledge now more than ever before the behaviour that led me to getting banned too.

I can give you a proposal for how I would make sure that something like this never happens again.

I would:

1) Make sure not to ever possess any other account under ANY circumstances.

2) Not to share my IP address or devices with any other Wikipedia user under any circumstances. (I never knew this was even a risk).

3) Avoid any disputes with other Wikipedia users.

4) Only contribute to the encyclopedia positively.

Is there any way that my previous history could be analysed? I've positively contributed quite a lot to the encyclopedia for a long time. I do understand the red flags and I acknowledge all the mistakes that were made. I understand that the administrators are busy too. Honestly, this all started with one mistake that became many and that was due to panic. Isn't there any concession that could be offered to me if I make this commitment? I might be asking for a lot due to the mistakes I've made, however my history in Wikipedia was almost always positive and we'll received up until this point.

Really appreciate the consideration.MustafaO (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read the articles on Sockpuppetry and the guide to appealing blocks

I fully understand the reasons why I was blocked and that I committed sockpuppetry. It was a mistake. It will never happen again under any circumstances, it was due to panic without thinking. This is the only account I will ever have. If I'm given a concession such as a conditional unblocking or any mechanism in which I can prove myself again, I would appreciate it so greatly. I guarantee that if I'm unblocked, you will never hear or see this happen again. Thank you MustafaO (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for an unblock, an explanation and an apology

 * I would not normally respond to unblock requests, but I am clarifying a few points since my name was brought up, and the editor has been very disruptive to the project. New sock accounts were confirmed and blocked as recent as yesterday, two of them registered within 20 minutes of one another , . Ignorance of socking guidelines very unlikely given that editor was citing MEAT not that long ago . Intent of disruptive editing very clear from late 2017/early 2018 . They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like any contributions made by User:Kzl55 would be unfair in this regard, he is not an administrator and there has been a history of editing disputes between myself and Kzl55 on many pages such as the Abdullahi Qarshe page, , , , also the Balwo page , , , , also the Abdi Sinimo page ], , , . There are many many more instances. He took advantage of the situation by reversing many edits done on some of the pages that I have contributed to already: . This same user invested a huge amount of time to secure the block takes effect . This should be noted. As for citing MEAT, that was relating to the deletion nomination page ONLY.MustafaO (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Ahmed Lafaciise has never sent an email through Special:EmailUser. ST47 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks, . Since the filter log is empty too, I wonder what else could have been meant by "to challenge the block and send a direct message to users, ST47 and Bbb23". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello

User:ST47 and User: ToBeFree, when I wrote: "I then created User: Ahmed Lafaciise to challenge the block..." What I meant was challenging the block was my initial intention and because of the fear that I lost my account for good, I made an intention to keep the new account and make it my main one. So I never went through with challenging it whatsoever. It was a mistake that I made. One that I fully regret. And I acknowledge fully what you've said.

I do recognise, understand and acknowledge now more than ever before the behaviour that led me to getting banned too.

I can give you a proposal for how I would make sure that something like this never happens again.

I would:

1) Make sure not to ever possess any other account under ANY circumstances.

2) Not to share my IP address or devices with any other Wikipedia user under any circumstances. (I never knew this was even a risk).

3) Avoid any disputes with other Wikipedia users.

4) Only contribute to the encyclopedia positively.

Is there any way that my previous history could be analysed? I've positively contributed quite a lot to the encyclopedia for a long time. I do understand the red flags and I acknowledge all the mistakes that were made. I understand that the administrators are busy too. Honestly, this all started with one mistake that became many and that was due to panic. Isn't there any concession that could be offered to me if I make this commitment? I might be asking for a lot due to the mistakes I've made, however my history in Wikipedia was almost always positive and we'll received up until this point.

Really appreciate the consideration.MustafaO (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read the articles on Sockpuppetry and the guide to appealing blocks

I fully understand the reasons why I was blocked and that I committed sockpuppetry. It was a mistake. It will never happen again under any circumstances, it was due to panic without thinking. This is the only account I will ever have. If I'm given a concession such as a conditional unblocking or any mechanism in which I can prove myself again, I would appreciate it so greatly. I guarantee that if I'm unblocked, you will never hear or see this happen again. Thank you MustafaO (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock request by MustafaO. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to write below if you have any answers or messages regarding the discussion. The essay "WP:BLUDGEON" explains that responding to every single message is a common mistake; I recommend answering questions, but avoiding unsolicited responses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock request by MustafaO. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to write below if you have any answers or messages regarding the discussion. The essay "WP:BLUDGEON" explains that responding to every single message is a common mistake; I recommend answering questions, but avoiding unsolicited responses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request
I'm afraid I'm not doing you a favor, but I'll copy the request to WP:AN... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User: ToBeFree If it's not going to help my situation in anyway, then should I reverse the request? What would you advise?MustafaO (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The community can be pretty lenient. I'm just not impressed by "six months" being interpreted as "two days". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User: ToBeFree Ohh I see, is the "6 months" a condition? I thought it was just an idea or suggestion and that it wasn't a must. Is there anyway I could request a conditional unblock? Or a partial unblock? Or maybe a scheme where my edits and contributions could be more scrutinised? Any concession Im given I'll be grateful at this point. Its the first time I've ever been sanctioned this heavily and given an indefinite block. MustafaO (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a strict condition, but commonly expected to be followed – at least when the blocked user is explicitly asked to wait six months, and has received a link to WP:SO, which contains the same advice. And especially if the sockpuppeteering happened a few weeks ago, and if the last appeal was declined two days ago... for reasons that might not actually have changed since. Writing a friendly appeal, especially one that does not address the reason for the last decline, is too simple to safely prove a change in attitude. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that all said, you have your first (weak) supporter, and it happens to be one whose opinion I personally value highly. Let's see what the discussion brings. I'm not sure if there is a formal withdrawal process; I guess if it becomes too bad, you are welcome to withdraw at any time, simply by saying so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: This is essentially a discussion about whether a community ban should be enacted or not. I'm afraid that, as also described by WP:SO ("Note for blocked users"), even if this goes horribly against your favor, you'll need to wait for it to be closed after about 24 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So essentially it can turn out to be far worse than I actually expected, by making this request and there is no way to stop it? MustafaO (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The worst thing that could happen is the result "You can't appeal this block for the next X months, and you can only appeal at WP:AN afterwards", which is pretty much the state before your appeal, just approved by the community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User: ToBeFree I appreciate everything that you've said and I've understood fully the mistakes that I've made and I want to move on in a positive way. That's why I asked for a conditional block or even a partial block, because I understand your concerns and I want to prove myself. One thing that I do know is that I've understood my mistakes and what I did wrong. I could wait 6 months but I feel that I wouldn't know better then what I know now. I haven't slept in the past few nights reading up on the violations, what constitutes violations, sockpuppetry, blocks, how to redeem yourself and how to appeal. I've read a lot of information exhaustively. MustafaO (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request
I'm afraid I'm not doing you a favor, but I'll copy the request to WP:AN... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User: ToBeFree If it's not going to help my situation in anyway, then should I reverse the request? What would you advise?MustafaO (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The community can be pretty lenient. I'm just not impressed by "six months" being interpreted as "two days". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User: ToBeFree Ohh I see, is the "6 months" a condition? I thought it was just an idea or suggestion and that it wasn't a must. Is there anyway I could request a conditional unblock? Or a partial unblock? Or maybe a scheme where my edits and contributions could be more scrutinised? Any concession Im given I'll be grateful at this point. Its the first time I've ever been sanctioned this heavily and given an indefinite block. MustafaO (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a strict condition, but commonly expected to be followed – at least when the blocked user is explicitly asked to wait six months, and has received a link to WP:SO, which contains the same advice. And especially if the sockpuppeteering happened a few weeks ago, and if the last appeal was declined two days ago... for reasons that might not actually have changed since. Writing a friendly appeal, especially one that does not address the reason for the last decline, is too simple to safely prove a change in attitude. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that all said, you have your first (weak) supporter, and it happens to be one whose opinion I personally value highly. Let's see what the discussion brings. I'm not sure if there is a formal withdrawal process; I guess if it becomes too bad, you are welcome to withdraw at any time, simply by saying so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: This is essentially a discussion about whether a community ban should be enacted or not. I'm afraid that, as also described by WP:SO ("Note for blocked users"), even if this goes horribly against your favor, you'll need to wait for it to be closed after about 24 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So essentially it can turn out to be far worse than I actually expected, by making this request and there is no way to stop it? MustafaO (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The worst thing that could happen is the result "You can't appeal this block for the next X months, and you can only appeal at WP:AN afterwards", which is pretty much the state before your appeal, just approved by the community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User: ToBeFree I appreciate everything that you've said and I've understood fully the mistakes that I've made and I want to move on in a positive way. That's why I asked for a conditional block or even a partial block, because I understand your concerns and I want to prove myself. One thing that I do know is that I've understood my mistakes and what I did wrong. I could wait 6 months but I feel that I wouldn't know better then what I know now. I haven't slept in the past few nights reading up on the violations, what constitutes violations, sockpuppetry, blocks, how to redeem yourself and how to appeal. I've read a lot of information exhaustively. MustafaO (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Banned by the community
For your information: because a Checkuser has confirmed that you have used sock puppets twice since you were blocked indefinitely, you are now considered banned by the community. I would advise you to read the banning policy, specifically. Best, MrClog (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Banned by the community
For your information: because a Checkuser has confirmed that you have used sock puppets twice since you were blocked indefinitely, you are now considered banned by the community. I would advise you to read the banning policy, specifically. Best, MrClog (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

MustafaO unblocked
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: /Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s

}}
 * minthreadsleft=4
 * minthreadstoarchive=2

MustafaO unblocked
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Awdal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hawkers994 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
 // Timothy :: talk  23:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Awdal) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Beja people, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)