User talk:Aurelius5150

Imamate of Aussa

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Magherbin (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have used sources many times, and you keep reverting them . You are hiding history to push your narrative , you are the one commiting vandalism Aurelius5150 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing content on the page. Discuss your changes on the talk page if you have any concerns. Magherbin (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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; 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. Magherbin (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are the undoing works of other editors Aurelius5150 (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What work? I'm not the one removing content from pages [1]. Magherbin (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magherbin (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning

Your recent editing history at Argobba people 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. Magherbin (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep reverting my changes, which I provide historical sources, you are presenting false facts which are baseless theories to push your narrative, you are a false historian with an agenda, in which i will report Aurelius5150 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you discuss your changes on the articles talk page? I'm not a historian but I know fringe theories which you're introducing into the article. Magherbin (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not introducing fringe theories, im using Arabic and Habesha records as refencing for anything pre 17th centuary, using the Harar chronicles and using anecdotal evidence from explorers and historians from the 17th-19th centuary. Im not adding and removing anything without the use of referencing, unlike you who is adding and removing without referencing and using references like Lapiso Delebo who is using theories and hypothesis with Racial and Ethipoic agenda, the role of a historian is to give the facts as present as record at the time and you are not abiding to those rules. I will continue to add to these pages correcting information not presented with evidence Aurelius5150 (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already been blocked for edit warring. Please discuss content and sourcing on the article talk page. Please use dispute resolution as needed. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i provide the referencing and sources with historical context, yet you allow opinions and theories to be passed off as facts. Aurelius5150 (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Providing references doesnt mean you can editwar your way into keeping them in the article, thanks for opening a section on the articles talk page, we'll discuss the matter now. Try to gain consensus before adding content. Magherbin (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your the one creating edit wars, and ignoring the census in the talk sections Aurelius5150 (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aurelius5150 reported by User:CastJared (Result: ). Thank you. CastJared (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i got blocked for correctly referencing and using correct sources, and its been more than 24 hours? why am i still blocked Aurelius5150 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, This is the reason you can't edit war. CastJared (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garad/Harla people/Aw (father)/Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi/Imamate of Aussa articles

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Magherbin (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may also need to read WP:HOUND. Magherbin (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ali Kalageeye (October 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ali Kalageeye and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i referenced the article, the reference pdf has further references. Ive seeen articles on wiki with no references at all be approved , i did the right thing Aurelius5150 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aurelius5150! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Issa (clan). Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 15 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) 05:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Concern regarding Draft:Ali Kalageeye

Hello, Aurelius5150. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ali Kalageeye, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Johnny Somali, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my references where videos of him saying it himself, so your implying i just need to add the following as stated in your reliable source link:

{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) for references to general websites

{{cite news}}: Empty citation (help) for newspapers and news websites

{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) for references to books

{{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) for magazines, academic journals, and papers

cause most are from websites that produce video streams . I'll add it with {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)

you cant say they are not reliable, its literally him clips of him with evidence. Thanks on informing me on how to correctly cite it, ill re-add my changes with the correct cite format Aurelius5150 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 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).

Aurelius5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I initial sent a request to block user certain user on the Johnny Somali page for lying on the ethnicity of the character and his origins, if that wasn't bad enough he was removing new sections of controversies I listed. I gave all the references for the evidence for these changes. Literally look through the edit history and look who is adding the correct information with referencing and actually adding truths, its insane im being blocked for doing the correct thing Aurelius5150 (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you insist on blaming others for your block you won't be able to convince any reviewing admin that you understand what you were blocked for. You need to read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources & Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks. Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 24 April 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.

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).

Aurelius5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Did the admins even look at the edit history? it wasnt just me trying to update it with correct info

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 24 April 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.

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).

Aurelius5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What disruptive edits have i done? show me the proofs the warnings in relation to the Johny article?

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. See above to understand how to write an unblock request. Please be careful, you'll likely only get one more chance. Yamla (talk) 11:37, 24 April 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.

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).

Aurelius5150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for making changes to a page, i provided sources and references and even contributed more the page, yet i was reported cause editors and page owners are pushing an agenda, i ask you to look at the edit history and see for yourselves

Decline reason:

The burden of proof in these cases is on you to show us you can be trusted to edit on here without harassing and disrupting our project members and article, respectively. This is the fourth attempt you've made to wiggle out of this correct action by pointing the finger of blame at others rather than taking the time to inspect your own actions, and our patients for it has run out. The request is denied, and I've revoked your ability to edit this page for misusing the unblock request templates. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:28, 3 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.