User talk:Felinepaw

Welcome!

Hello, Felinepaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lower Juba into Kismayo. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Fakhr-al-Din II, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jebel Baruk has been accepted

Jebel Baruk, 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.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Dan arndt (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

TheSandDoctor there's been a mistake I'm not a sockpuppet and I am not Middayexpress. I never got a chance to defend myself. Felinepaw (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To appeal your block, please review WP:UNBLOCK and WP:GAB as they have all the information that you will need to know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor I was blocked based on behaviour so do I address each point made as to why I made the edits in those particular articles? Looking through Middaysexpress account they have edited a large number of the pages in the Somalia wikiproject. Many of the edits I made following other active users edits on Wikipedia. Other ones such as Faqash is because I removed a section of Wanlaweyn which I argued was disparaging and I therefore searched other similar names that can be regarded as disparaging based on Google searches. Felinepaw (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middayexpress appears to have edited a lot of articles in the project so it's easy to be accused of being the same person, I am promise I am not nor will I be a disruptive user. If you look at my discussion on the talk pages I am fair and I do not edit till the discussion is over. Felinepaw (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This block must be appealed through the standard process. WP:GAB gives you information on formulating your request and Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Requesting to be unblocked step by step instructions to appeal it. Please review what I have linked and another administrator will review your request. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor Will the administrator ask me to expand on case by case edits after my initial statement because I am asked to keep it concise even though there's a lot of edits that were on similar pages? Felinepaw (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing block

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).

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

Request reason:

I think this is a case of mistaken identity I am not a sockpuppet. The user I am being accused of has edited a lot of pages on the Somalia Wikiproject so I have edited the same pages. For example on Faqash I edited because I removed a pejorative on Wanlaweyn. I then sought out other politically charged pejoratives in the Somali language via Google searches and found redirects. On Wikivoyage I tagged the Somaliland and Puntland articles as unsafe for travel which led me to the Koofur Orsi article which I did not believe existed. However it was a language barrier and I did not know it was the Somali term for South West State of Somalia and I explained that on the talk page. The sockpuppet had apparently edited the article but my coincidence was that I was looking at Somalian regions for unsafe travel. These are coincidences cause the user has edited a huge amount of pages related to Somalia wikiproject. Please reconsider this block, I am willing to improve any behaviour that is counter productive to Wikipedia. Felinepaw (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC) :The Faqash article is the one I removed the redirect and added a speedy deletion but it has been deleted now as a WP:G10 I didn't create it in the first place. Felinepaw (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining as stale only; you are welcome to make another, more convincing request. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2020 (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.

Comment: Note to reviewing admin, repetitive long-winded appealing once sanctions are placed against a confirmed sock is also part of sock-puppeteer's post-block gameplay e.g. [1].

Update: With regards to Faqash, the article was created by confirmed sock Thylacoop5 in 2018 and was not edited by anyone else. It is highly unlikely for a new editor to not only be aware of the existence of such an obscure page (<1 average daily page views and not linked-to by any other article) but to also be interested enough to then edit it. This is coupled with other instances of editing very obscure cross-wiki entries originally created by socks, as outlined in the SPI. On issue of removing content originally inserted by socks, it is not unusual for two confirmed socks of Middayexpress to feign disagreement and even revert one another in an attempt evade scrutiny e.g. Troyoleg and Odriejh (both confirmed socks) [2], or Qevoja reverting Geneticanthro (again both confirmed socks) [3]. I am only adding this in case reviewing admin is not familiar with the case. --Kzl55 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on editing the same pages as an editor who has a long history spanning multiple years and thousands of pages. Felinepaw (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not removed till the introduction of this edit a which was also removed by another editor for being irrelevant b by another user. All of this is based on editing the same pages as a user who edited almost all pages on the Somalia project, removing content made by other users is not enough to say I am a sockpuppet. Felinepaw (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]