Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Badhan, Sanaag, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
18:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 15:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from disruptive editing. There is a longstanding consensus where Somaliland-related articles are to be marked as Somaliland. Dabaqabad ( talk) 16:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Togdheer, did not appear constructive and has 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 your
sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Jacob300 (
talk)
07:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 19:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
As a point of interest I was under the impression that these sanctions expired on 1st March, 2021. Are they still in effect? Amirah talk 02:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Shirshore. Please consider responding to the complaint about you at WP:AN3. If you continue to edit war regarding Somalia versus Somaliland you are risking an indefinite block from Wikipedia. The question of Somaliland versus Somalia has been the topic of many previous discussions and you're not at liberty to ignore the past consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Please note you may indefinitely blocked if this continues. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is
legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. ✗ plicit 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kiin Jama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mccapra ( talk) 09:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Shirshore! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
Dhulbahante that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
David Biddulph (
talk)
13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Dhahar. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Dhahar.
Dabaqabad (
talk)
18:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Dhahar and
Badhan. --
Siirski (
talk)
18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Jacob300 (
talk)
22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ Shirshore:,
Seeing how we've been going back and forth here without any results I'd just like to suggest a compromise that will hopefully satisfy us both:
I hope this compromise is a compromise we can both agree to. If you have any objections or if you want to make any changes to it then let me know. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dabaqabad,
Thank you for suggesting a compromise. Provided we're both serious and earnest, undoubtably we're a capable of compromising. I for one, I'm confident we can transcend this impasse and reach consensus regarding the matter at dispute, while moving forward, I'm hopeful we will be able to work together in constructively contributing to a reliable encyclopedia.
Regarding the terms of the compromise you set out, I do not find them all acceptable. I agree to point 4 and 6.
First, as I have reiterated in our previous discussions, I do not believe Somaliland has effective control in the places you mentioned, but that's another debate, let's discuss it later.
Second, I need you to understand and agree to the situation of territorial dispute. The regions of Sool, and Eastern Sanaag and Buuhoodle District are disputed by Somaliland and Puntland - both entities claim ownership. Presently, Somaliland has effective control in most of the disputed territory, I do not dispute this. Puntland controls major centres in Sanaag and partially controls parts of Sool. The city of Buuhoodle and its vicinity is controlled by local inhabitants independently of both entities.
Now I believe in the pursuit of fairness and neutrality, both Somaliland and Puntland should have equal representation in all the articles of the towns, cities, and regions in the disputed territory. In this regard, I offer the following counter terms for a compromise.
For all articles concerning towns/cities and the two regions in the disputed territory:
--- Toghdeer:
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Many thanks, Shirshore ( talk) 00:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Dabaqabad.
The news reports you've cited relate to Somaliland activities in the city over a long period of almost a decade. This being a volatile region, the security situation has often times changed. Nonetheless, I agree local officials who are loyal to Somaliland do operate in the city, however, militarily Somaliland's influence was significantly weakened when few hundred troops who were previously loyal to Somaliland defected to Puntland in 2019. As Mahmood reports ' while the Warsengali have established relations with both Somaliland and Puntland, the clan has generally resisted the deployment of armed forces in their areas. The events of 2019, interlinked with internal Somaliland dynamics, altered the previous status quo ' ( [50]), p.13. As of January 2021 Puntland again solidified it's control of the city, when it deployed troops in attempt to prevent Somaliland from conducting upcoming elections in the city. The following media reports confirm Puntland's recent military grip in Badhan:
Further reports confirming Puntland's control of Badhan:
There are also limitless other daily news reports which back this claim.
Puntland controls lands east of Badhan including Las Qoray. Here's a report about the Puntland police station in Las Qoray for instance ( [65]). Also in my knowledge Puntland effectively controls Dhahar but while there are abundant news reports, there is no concrete sources which confirm my prior argument regarding the city. Thus, I can concede that both entities exert nominal control in the city. Moreover, you should be aware that this nominal control is not limited to the towns/cities we mentioned thus far. There are news reports which suggest in places such as Buraan, Hadaftimo, Yubbe, Damala Hagare, Armale, Hingalol in Sanaag and Sarmaanyo, Taleh, Xudun, Boocame in Sool control is often fluid with both Somaliland and Puntland maintaining representatives and conducting operations.
Regarding the infobox and the introductory section of these articles, I still hold that both entities should be represented equally.
Many thanks, Shirshore ( talk) 02:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Shirshore: Most sources describe Sool and Sanaag as part of Somaliland, and the infobox will have to reflect that given that both regions are part of the seceded polity. Examples include Wageningen University and Research ( [66]), the Canada Immigration and Refugee board ( [67]), the Combatting Terrorism Center ( [68]), Interpeace ( [69]), ACAPS ( [70]), African Journals Online ( [71]), and Coverage Monitoring ( [72]). This position is further affirmed by Marcus Hoehne who has written many books about the territorial dispute ( [73]), Michael Walls who also covers Somaliland-related topics ( [74]) as well as Amnesty International ( [75])
Other sources that back up this claim are linked here; ( [76], [77], [78], [79],
Even the government of Somalia sees these two regions as part of Somaliland and has opted out from getting involved in the territorial dispute. Former president of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud stated his opinion whilst in office that Puntland is made up of two and a half regions (Bari, Nugal and northern Mudug), which goes against Puntland's claim of Sool and Sanaag.
Furthermore, in preparation for the Somali presidential election of 2017 the communiqué released by the office of Presidency of Somalia regarding Somalia's National Leadership Forum referred to the disputed territory as Gobollada Sool iyo Sanaag ee Soomaaliland (Somaliland's Sool and Sanaag regions). Somalia's National Leadership Forum was chaired by the President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and attended by the Speaker of Parliament Mohamed Osman Jawari, Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, Presidents of South West, Galmudug, Hirshabelle, states of Somalia and the Vice President of Puntland state.
As for Badhan most of my sources are post-2019, which proves that despite defections and military incursions Somaliland still maintains a significant presence in Badhan. I made an edit to Dhahar as an example to show you what I have in mind, just as an example. Hopefully that should be acceptable. Dabaqabad ( talk) 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The majority of sources place these localities inside Somaliland, which should be reflected per Wikipedia policy to follow what the majority of sources say.
As for Badhan while I don't disagree that Puntland forces are present there the situation is too fluid to say that one side truly controls it. Puntland deploying troops into the town does not imply it has full military control over the town as that would imply Somaliland withdrew completely, which has not been announced anywhere and has not been mentioned.
For example, just yesterday schools in Badhan took Somaliland's national examinations ( [80]) which further proves my point.
The issue is that the infoboxes can't really reflect the unique position that Badhan and Dhahar are in (e.g influence) unless you add an efn tag that explains that Puntland has influence or partial control over the town in question. Take a look at my previous exemplary edit on Dhahar for reference. Dabaqabad ( talk) 17:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
When two governments are both claiming ownership of a piece of land, two methods are often used in Wikipedia infobox.
One method is to write both the country that has effective control and the country that claims territorial rights. I think this method is more convenient. Hans Island, Paracel Islands, and Senkaku Islands are examples.
The other method is to write only the countries that are under effective control. Isla de Aves, Mayotte, and Olivenza are examples. This method seems to be more common in English Wikipedia.
I think there are few examples of writing only about countries that claim territorial rights.-- Freetrashbox ( talk) 10:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I concur with User:AmirahBreen, and believe that the geographical locations should be kept in the infobox. Any additional information regarding "control" should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources. Many thanks Jacob300 ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Freetrashbox: While that's understandable, the issue at hand is who controls these towns, and I have proven that the situation is too fluid to conclude one side has control. Both sides have influence and influence can't really be described in an infobox like @ AmirahBreen: pointed out. Dabaqabad ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Dabaqabad We have discussed the issue of control enough, and I think it's pretty obvious it's almost impossible to reach consensus regarding that. Let's end it there. Nonetheless, we both agree that both entities have significant influence in these disputed regions, the question now is how do we reflect that in the articles? My argument is neither claim should be elevated above the other, as it's not our job to determine which claim is more legitimate. In this regard, we should utilise the first method Freetrashbox mentions as we cannot ascertain effective control due to the fluidity of the situation in the disputed regions. Regards, Shirshore ( talk) 20:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: All Somaliland is disputed It is important to understand the point. I agree with Jacob300's proposal.
``Any additional information regarding "control" should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources.``
The Somali government does not recognize Somaliland as part of the federal states of Somalia. See [84]. -- Siirski ( talk) 23:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I think it's appropriate to write Bahan's infobox following
Hans Island's example. In this case, Administered by Disputed, Claimed by Somaliland/ Puntland.
Otherwise, if both Somaliland and Puntland have had a significant impact on the town in the last five years, it is advisable to treat the town as a disputed area.
The significant include the following;
-- Freetrashbox ( talk) 12:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I'd just like to say that I agree with @ AmirahBreen:'s third opinion on this issue and deem it a suitable compromise where both claims are mentioned and the territorial dispute highlighted. The geographical location (Somaliland in this case since the wider regions are part of the seceded entity) should be kept in the infobox. Any information regarding control or influence should be described in a "territorial disputes" dedicated to the dispute itself with cited reliable sources. This would adequately explain the situation and seems to be the majority opinion on this topic among the editors who have been discussing here for days. This issue should be dealt with and a consensus reached as soon as possible and this seems to be the suitable solution for this. Since no one side fully controls the disputed towns the geographical location should remain as it was before the edit war that ensued, with no good reason to change it. Dabaqabad ( talk) 19:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
According to international observers as well as the Somali government Sool and Sanaag regions are officially under Somaliland region exclusively and therefore should be kept in the infobox. Any information regarding on the ground control should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources. Especially as on the ground control may shift over time. Thanks. Madarkis ( talk) 20:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Well it seems that 5 people (me, @ AmirahBreen:, @ Jacob300:, @ Siirski: and @ Madarkis:) out of 7 people are on board with this. Dabaqabad ( talk) 02:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Not once have you folded. This was originally between the two of us but as it seems now the majority of editors on this topic are now involved and the majority have agreed, therefore effectively reaching a consensus.
I have tried my best to reach a consensus but it's too one-sided: I'm always the one folding while you ask for more. Your Somalian nationalist POV certainly doesn't help.
I'd also advise you to refrain from reverting pages in the future while a consensus is being discussed. That can be classified as disruptive editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 11:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Freetrashbox: He has not assumed good-faith multiple times throughout this discussion, in addition to him accusing me of bias. The majority have agreed with the third party in question (@ AmirahBreen:) so I assume that's the new consensus in place. All his edits were reverted by one of the people who were discussing here to the previous version before the edit war as we are discussing future additions, therefore the pages should be returned to their previous state. Dabaqabad ( talk) 00:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I saw your edits. As you probably know, Wikipedia requires a source for its descriptions. Even if your description is based on a source already indicated in the article, it is advisable to write the name of the source in the edit summary to avoid misunderstandings.-- Freetrashbox ( talk) 05:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somaliland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dir.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Ue3lman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Ethiopia seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Ue3lman (
talk)
00:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Kzl55 ( talk) 19:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Kzl55 (
talk)
21:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Shirshore. Thank you.-- Kzl55 ( talk) 01:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
you are topic banned from Horn of Africa, broadly construed, with a possibility of appeal in six months
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#Amendment_(November_2021)#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ymblanter ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
RoySmith
(talk)
14:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Shirshore. Thank you. -- Kzl55 ( talk) 18:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Shirshore,
If I see correctly, you are currently affected by a ban. In the description of the ban, a restriction is described that appears to prohibit you from appealing the ban earlier than six months.
I have noticed this restriction (six months before appealing) at WP:AELOG/2022. As I'm uncertain about whether such a restriction may be made at all, I have asked for advice at WP:ARCA#Clarification_request:_Appeal_restrictions_as_part_of_discretionary_sanctions.
If you agree with what is being said there, I think you can safely ignore this notification. If the arbitrators decide that the restriction is lifted, you'll be notified separately. You are welcome to provide an own statement too, though.
If you can't edit the page, please have a look at the instruction box at the top of the page for an e-mail option.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Following a clarification request regarding appeal restrictions as part of
discretionary sanctions, a sanction placed against you has been
amended to remove a previous restriction regarding your ability to appeal. The archived request can be viewed
here.
For the Arbitration Committee, –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
19:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Badhan, Sanaag, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
18:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 15:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from disruptive editing. There is a longstanding consensus where Somaliland-related articles are to be marked as Somaliland. Dabaqabad ( talk) 16:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Togdheer, did not appear constructive and has 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 your
sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Jacob300 (
talk)
07:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 19:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
As a point of interest I was under the impression that these sanctions expired on 1st March, 2021. Are they still in effect? Amirah talk 02:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello User:Shirshore. Please consider responding to the complaint about you at WP:AN3. If you continue to edit war regarding Somalia versus Somaliland you are risking an indefinite block from Wikipedia. The question of Somaliland versus Somalia has been the topic of many previous discussions and you're not at liberty to ignore the past consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Please note you may indefinitely blocked if this continues. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is
legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. ✗ plicit 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kiin Jama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mccapra ( talk) 09:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Shirshore! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
Dhulbahante that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
David Biddulph (
talk)
13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Dhahar. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Dhahar.
Dabaqabad (
talk)
18:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Dhahar and
Badhan. --
Siirski (
talk)
18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Jacob300 (
talk)
22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ Shirshore:,
Seeing how we've been going back and forth here without any results I'd just like to suggest a compromise that will hopefully satisfy us both:
I hope this compromise is a compromise we can both agree to. If you have any objections or if you want to make any changes to it then let me know. Dabaqabad ( talk) 18:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Dabaqabad,
Thank you for suggesting a compromise. Provided we're both serious and earnest, undoubtably we're a capable of compromising. I for one, I'm confident we can transcend this impasse and reach consensus regarding the matter at dispute, while moving forward, I'm hopeful we will be able to work together in constructively contributing to a reliable encyclopedia.
Regarding the terms of the compromise you set out, I do not find them all acceptable. I agree to point 4 and 6.
First, as I have reiterated in our previous discussions, I do not believe Somaliland has effective control in the places you mentioned, but that's another debate, let's discuss it later.
Second, I need you to understand and agree to the situation of territorial dispute. The regions of Sool, and Eastern Sanaag and Buuhoodle District are disputed by Somaliland and Puntland - both entities claim ownership. Presently, Somaliland has effective control in most of the disputed territory, I do not dispute this. Puntland controls major centres in Sanaag and partially controls parts of Sool. The city of Buuhoodle and its vicinity is controlled by local inhabitants independently of both entities.
Now I believe in the pursuit of fairness and neutrality, both Somaliland and Puntland should have equal representation in all the articles of the towns, cities, and regions in the disputed territory. In this regard, I offer the following counter terms for a compromise.
For all articles concerning towns/cities and the two regions in the disputed territory:
--- Toghdeer:
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Many thanks, Shirshore ( talk) 00:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Dabaqabad.
The news reports you've cited relate to Somaliland activities in the city over a long period of almost a decade. This being a volatile region, the security situation has often times changed. Nonetheless, I agree local officials who are loyal to Somaliland do operate in the city, however, militarily Somaliland's influence was significantly weakened when few hundred troops who were previously loyal to Somaliland defected to Puntland in 2019. As Mahmood reports ' while the Warsengali have established relations with both Somaliland and Puntland, the clan has generally resisted the deployment of armed forces in their areas. The events of 2019, interlinked with internal Somaliland dynamics, altered the previous status quo ' ( [50]), p.13. As of January 2021 Puntland again solidified it's control of the city, when it deployed troops in attempt to prevent Somaliland from conducting upcoming elections in the city. The following media reports confirm Puntland's recent military grip in Badhan:
Further reports confirming Puntland's control of Badhan:
There are also limitless other daily news reports which back this claim.
Puntland controls lands east of Badhan including Las Qoray. Here's a report about the Puntland police station in Las Qoray for instance ( [65]). Also in my knowledge Puntland effectively controls Dhahar but while there are abundant news reports, there is no concrete sources which confirm my prior argument regarding the city. Thus, I can concede that both entities exert nominal control in the city. Moreover, you should be aware that this nominal control is not limited to the towns/cities we mentioned thus far. There are news reports which suggest in places such as Buraan, Hadaftimo, Yubbe, Damala Hagare, Armale, Hingalol in Sanaag and Sarmaanyo, Taleh, Xudun, Boocame in Sool control is often fluid with both Somaliland and Puntland maintaining representatives and conducting operations.
Regarding the infobox and the introductory section of these articles, I still hold that both entities should be represented equally.
Many thanks, Shirshore ( talk) 02:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Shirshore: Most sources describe Sool and Sanaag as part of Somaliland, and the infobox will have to reflect that given that both regions are part of the seceded polity. Examples include Wageningen University and Research ( [66]), the Canada Immigration and Refugee board ( [67]), the Combatting Terrorism Center ( [68]), Interpeace ( [69]), ACAPS ( [70]), African Journals Online ( [71]), and Coverage Monitoring ( [72]). This position is further affirmed by Marcus Hoehne who has written many books about the territorial dispute ( [73]), Michael Walls who also covers Somaliland-related topics ( [74]) as well as Amnesty International ( [75])
Other sources that back up this claim are linked here; ( [76], [77], [78], [79],
Even the government of Somalia sees these two regions as part of Somaliland and has opted out from getting involved in the territorial dispute. Former president of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud stated his opinion whilst in office that Puntland is made up of two and a half regions (Bari, Nugal and northern Mudug), which goes against Puntland's claim of Sool and Sanaag.
Furthermore, in preparation for the Somali presidential election of 2017 the communiqué released by the office of Presidency of Somalia regarding Somalia's National Leadership Forum referred to the disputed territory as Gobollada Sool iyo Sanaag ee Soomaaliland (Somaliland's Sool and Sanaag regions). Somalia's National Leadership Forum was chaired by the President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and attended by the Speaker of Parliament Mohamed Osman Jawari, Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, Presidents of South West, Galmudug, Hirshabelle, states of Somalia and the Vice President of Puntland state.
As for Badhan most of my sources are post-2019, which proves that despite defections and military incursions Somaliland still maintains a significant presence in Badhan. I made an edit to Dhahar as an example to show you what I have in mind, just as an example. Hopefully that should be acceptable. Dabaqabad ( talk) 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The majority of sources place these localities inside Somaliland, which should be reflected per Wikipedia policy to follow what the majority of sources say.
As for Badhan while I don't disagree that Puntland forces are present there the situation is too fluid to say that one side truly controls it. Puntland deploying troops into the town does not imply it has full military control over the town as that would imply Somaliland withdrew completely, which has not been announced anywhere and has not been mentioned.
For example, just yesterday schools in Badhan took Somaliland's national examinations ( [80]) which further proves my point.
The issue is that the infoboxes can't really reflect the unique position that Badhan and Dhahar are in (e.g influence) unless you add an efn tag that explains that Puntland has influence or partial control over the town in question. Take a look at my previous exemplary edit on Dhahar for reference. Dabaqabad ( talk) 17:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
When two governments are both claiming ownership of a piece of land, two methods are often used in Wikipedia infobox.
One method is to write both the country that has effective control and the country that claims territorial rights. I think this method is more convenient. Hans Island, Paracel Islands, and Senkaku Islands are examples.
The other method is to write only the countries that are under effective control. Isla de Aves, Mayotte, and Olivenza are examples. This method seems to be more common in English Wikipedia.
I think there are few examples of writing only about countries that claim territorial rights.-- Freetrashbox ( talk) 10:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I concur with User:AmirahBreen, and believe that the geographical locations should be kept in the infobox. Any additional information regarding "control" should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources. Many thanks Jacob300 ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Freetrashbox: While that's understandable, the issue at hand is who controls these towns, and I have proven that the situation is too fluid to conclude one side has control. Both sides have influence and influence can't really be described in an infobox like @ AmirahBreen: pointed out. Dabaqabad ( talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Dabaqabad We have discussed the issue of control enough, and I think it's pretty obvious it's almost impossible to reach consensus regarding that. Let's end it there. Nonetheless, we both agree that both entities have significant influence in these disputed regions, the question now is how do we reflect that in the articles? My argument is neither claim should be elevated above the other, as it's not our job to determine which claim is more legitimate. In this regard, we should utilise the first method Freetrashbox mentions as we cannot ascertain effective control due to the fluidity of the situation in the disputed regions. Regards, Shirshore ( talk) 20:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: All Somaliland is disputed It is important to understand the point. I agree with Jacob300's proposal.
``Any additional information regarding "control" should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources.``
The Somali government does not recognize Somaliland as part of the federal states of Somalia. See [84]. -- Siirski ( talk) 23:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I think it's appropriate to write Bahan's infobox following
Hans Island's example. In this case, Administered by Disputed, Claimed by Somaliland/ Puntland.
Otherwise, if both Somaliland and Puntland have had a significant impact on the town in the last five years, it is advisable to treat the town as a disputed area.
The significant include the following;
-- Freetrashbox ( talk) 12:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I'd just like to say that I agree with @ AmirahBreen:'s third opinion on this issue and deem it a suitable compromise where both claims are mentioned and the territorial dispute highlighted. The geographical location (Somaliland in this case since the wider regions are part of the seceded entity) should be kept in the infobox. Any information regarding control or influence should be described in a "territorial disputes" dedicated to the dispute itself with cited reliable sources. This would adequately explain the situation and seems to be the majority opinion on this topic among the editors who have been discussing here for days. This issue should be dealt with and a consensus reached as soon as possible and this seems to be the suitable solution for this. Since no one side fully controls the disputed towns the geographical location should remain as it was before the edit war that ensued, with no good reason to change it. Dabaqabad ( talk) 19:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
According to international observers as well as the Somali government Sool and Sanaag regions are officially under Somaliland region exclusively and therefore should be kept in the infobox. Any information regarding on the ground control should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources. Especially as on the ground control may shift over time. Thanks. Madarkis ( talk) 20:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Well it seems that 5 people (me, @ AmirahBreen:, @ Jacob300:, @ Siirski: and @ Madarkis:) out of 7 people are on board with this. Dabaqabad ( talk) 02:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Not once have you folded. This was originally between the two of us but as it seems now the majority of editors on this topic are now involved and the majority have agreed, therefore effectively reaching a consensus.
I have tried my best to reach a consensus but it's too one-sided: I'm always the one folding while you ask for more. Your Somalian nationalist POV certainly doesn't help.
I'd also advise you to refrain from reverting pages in the future while a consensus is being discussed. That can be classified as disruptive editing. Dabaqabad ( talk) 11:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Freetrashbox: He has not assumed good-faith multiple times throughout this discussion, in addition to him accusing me of bias. The majority have agreed with the third party in question (@ AmirahBreen:) so I assume that's the new consensus in place. All his edits were reverted by one of the people who were discussing here to the previous version before the edit war as we are discussing future additions, therefore the pages should be returned to their previous state. Dabaqabad ( talk) 00:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I saw your edits. As you probably know, Wikipedia requires a source for its descriptions. Even if your description is based on a source already indicated in the article, it is advisable to write the name of the source in the edit summary to avoid misunderstandings.-- Freetrashbox ( talk) 05:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somaliland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dir.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Ue3lman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Ethiopia seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Ue3lman (
talk)
00:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Kzl55 ( talk) 19:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Kzl55 (
talk)
21:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Shirshore. Thank you.-- Kzl55 ( talk) 01:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
you are topic banned from Horn of Africa, broadly construed, with a possibility of appeal in six months
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#Amendment_(November_2021)#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ymblanter ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
RoySmith
(talk)
14:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Shirshore. Thank you. -- Kzl55 ( talk) 18:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Shirshore,
If I see correctly, you are currently affected by a ban. In the description of the ban, a restriction is described that appears to prohibit you from appealing the ban earlier than six months.
I have noticed this restriction (six months before appealing) at WP:AELOG/2022. As I'm uncertain about whether such a restriction may be made at all, I have asked for advice at WP:ARCA#Clarification_request:_Appeal_restrictions_as_part_of_discretionary_sanctions.
If you agree with what is being said there, I think you can safely ignore this notification. If the arbitrators decide that the restriction is lifted, you'll be notified separately. You are welcome to provide an own statement too, though.
If you can't edit the page, please have a look at the instruction box at the top of the page for an e-mail option.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Following a clarification request regarding appeal restrictions as part of
discretionary sanctions, a sanction placed against you has been
amended to remove a previous restriction regarding your ability to appeal. The archived request can be viewed
here.
For the Arbitration Committee, –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
19:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)