User talk:MacrobianPrince

June 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Akisho have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Akisho was changed by Nature116 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954972 on 2021-06-07T20:52:55+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulled Simba moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Gulled Simba, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

Kindly add references: reliable independent sources
You need to also give sources that show significant coverage for this musician.
Don't forget to add categories. Whiteguru (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akisho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dir. 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) 06:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somalis in Denmark vandalism

Hello, I'm 1Kwords. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Somalis in Denmark have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Removing verified information WP:V from reliable WP:RS sources is a form of WP:VANDALISM. The edit was therefore reverted and be more constructive in the future. A Thousand Words (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning on Somalis in Denmark vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Somalis in Denmark, you may be blocked from editing. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Words Don't come at me with such bullshit, this article has no neutrality so am just fixing it.

That's not a valid reason to delete accurate and well sourced content. Adding diff for this vandalism, which was restored by me. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments with ~~~~ A Thousand Words (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning on Somalis in Denmark vandalism

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Somalis in Denmark. See diff. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Somalis in Denmark. 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. You gotta stop. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And 1Kwords, I figure you're watching this: I noted that twice ([1], [2]) you reverted without so much as a by-your-leave. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies not intentionally done, the rollback button did't give a popup where I could add an edit comment. What's the best option of the three available? That is "rollback AGF", "rollback" or "rollback (VANDAL)? Or is there a better way or tool available? A Thousand Words (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruptive removal of material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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) 17:52, 4 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was cleaning those articles from what right wingers wrote and I DID give an adequate reason. Read thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somalis in Denmark small discussion at the bottom, other Wikipedians also agreed. MacrobianPrince (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You might well be correct in your desire to have that stuff removed from the article, but WP:CONSENSUS has not been achieved to remove it, and you were edit warring to do so. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:13, 4 December 2021 (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.

Hello, I'm Amortias. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Somalis_in_Denmark#Negative_information_included_for_no_reason that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 22:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory of the Horn of Africa moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Prehistory of the Horn of Africa, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Prehistory of the Horn of Africa

Hello, MacrobianPrince. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Prehistory of the Horn of Africa, 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) 09:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm TornadoLGS. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tooth fairy, 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. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KICK (Streaming Service) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, KICK (Streaming Service), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adal Sultanate

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) 04:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hamza Ahmed (Youtube)

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 Hamza Ahmed (Youtube) 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. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini syndrome

Look if you want to contribute here long-term, you'll need to edit collaboratively and respect policy; work with the community not against it. A consensus community discussion resulted in a decision to redirect the page, and all that edit-warring against it will accomplish long-term is getting you blocked.

I advise you to review Wikipedia:Notability, especially WP:GNG. If after doing so you still believe the topic is notable, then start a draft using the WP:Article Wizard and submit it for review. If accepted an AFC reviewer will handle the rest. You may still reuse content from the redirect's history so long as you follow the procedure for copying within Wikipedia, details at WP:CWW.

Strictly speaking there are some other options available, such as requesting review of the original close at WP:Deletion Review, but realistically the best way of getting an article restored to that title is to write a draft that is accepted by an AFC-reviewer.

Once you do your research it is quite possible you will find that the topic is not-notable; that's not really a big deal, there are plenty of other pages that you can contribute to, thanks for your understanding. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]