User talk:Togawa11

August 2023

Hello, I'm Cordless Larry. I noticed that you recently removed content from Somalia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Adal Sultanate, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello, I'm User:Binglebarry. I noticed that you recently removed content from Somaliland without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks — Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of wars involving Somalia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Per WP:BURDEN, unsourced material may be removed at any time. The material you restored does not have citations from WP:IS WP:RS showing this meets the article inclusion criteria. // Timothy :: talk 00:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at List of wars involving Somalia, you may be blocked from editing. [1] // Timothy :: talk 21:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Barawa. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. R Prazeres (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Barawa. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War. Skitash (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I have been blocked for trying to correct historical inconsistencies, I would like to have be given a chance to correct this by including the proper references in the future Togawa11 (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Togawa11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for trying to correct historical inconsistencies, I would like to have be given another chance to correct my mistakes by including the proper references next time and not repeatedly editing

Reply: Yes that is the mistake I will be correcting further on by citing my sources for any edits I make in topics with various contentions my doing it collaboratively. I have tried before on certain topics but I would get no replies for some reason Togawa11 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were posting your preferred version of history without citing sources. This is not collaborative; you cannot impose your will because you think it is correct; everyone thinks that their edits are correct. You will need to tell us what will change about your editing in the future, especially with formally designated contentious topic areas. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 8 May 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.

Unblock

{{unblock}} Togawa11 (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock}} Togawa11 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock}} Togawa11 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Togawa11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for trying to correct historical inconsistencies, I would like to have be given another chance to correct my mistakes by including the proper references next time and not repeatedly editing. That is the mistake I will be correcting further on by citing my sources for any edits I make in topics with various contentions my doing it collaboratively. I have tried before on certain topics but I would get no replies. There will be no future editing without consulting.

Decline reason:

I am not going to unblock you so you can go back to the disputed topic area. If you want to edit other topics, you should say so in your next unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 25 June 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.

Togawa11 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]