User talk:Raagacelle

Welcome!

Hello, Raagacelle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Your recent editing history at Abgaal 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—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. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have requested temporary page protection in order to stop this vandalism and if it continues I will have to contact the Wikipedia admins. Raagacelle (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the other editor is acting in good faith, their edits are by definition not vandalism. Also, see m:The right version–an admin protecting the page is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. Please use the talk page to discuss with the other editor as the above notice suggests.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism on Wikipedia due to the specific definition Wikipedia uses however elsewhere putting fake information with malicious intents is vandalism. It is not only fake but negative information in the page which they openly admitted on my talk page. They left a message on my talk page and we have gone back and forth over 7 messages but it seems they are adamant to publish this fake piece of information. Raagacelle (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop edit warring. In addition, the article is now placed under WP:1RR restrictions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Abgaal. Your assertion that the other editor is acting maliciously is not justified. This applies to your comments towards them here as well. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haewiye page

Salam bro, please keep a lookout for Hawiye on Wikipedia. Every now and then a random hate account comes and tries to delete stuff or meddle. A simple reverse is enough to undo the damage but if you can find a way to protect the page information even more that would be good. Abshir55 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haye, I think you can request page protection, I will try that. These trolls are funny, they tried converting the Abgaal page to one of the Ogaden subs. Raagacelle (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection. Hawiye Page is already protected (but i don't know if it's currently full protected or semi protected, since the page is locked for editing if you aren't logged in) but in the request today i have mentioned myself, you and Dalahow (Murule) are the only longterm editors of that page with the exception of cleanupbots who fix reference citation spelling etc. Abshir55 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Raagacelle (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Udejeen moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Udejeen. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have done that. Raagacelle (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Abgaal) for edit warring.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Raagacelle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It seems that I have been blocked for edit warring, which I believe had a good reason. I was removing false information which a certain user keeps constantly adding, and I have informed the user that it is false. I am a reputable and only editor on the Abgaal page, and most of the edits are done by me whenever I find additional information to add to the page. I hope that this block can be reviewed again. Raagacelle (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not allowed to edit war even if you believe you are right. In fact, edit warring practically means constantly changing an article, because you believe you are right. I suggest you post on the Talk:Abgaal page, and explain why your changes are correct, and establish consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Babille, Somali (woreda), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darood. 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) 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fafan Zone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babile.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Udejeen has been accepted

Udejeen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ahmed Jila'ow Adow for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmed Jila'ow Adow is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Jila'ow Adow until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]