User talk:Somali123

Spanair Flight AJK 5022

Hi, it's probably not best to redirect a page to a stub. if we have to move spanair flight ajk 5022 to span flight 22 later, then that's fine. let's not lose the editing history though. i'm redirecting spanair flight 22 to spanair flight ajk 5022 for now. thanks. --Rajah (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't a stub it is the same as the previous page just with a coorect title and most bots and redirects go there.--15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spanair Flight AJK 5022. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanair Flight AJK 5022

YTou are messing up the edit history. Please stop and take it to the talk page. The article can be moved. Redirecting is not the way to do it. --Elliskev 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move the page to the new title and teh history with itthe title does not conform with other articles eg United fight 93 american airlines Flight 22.--Somali123 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made such a mess that we'll need an admin to fix it. --Elliskev 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets find one and fast--Somali123 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swede (root vegetable)

Hi! You moved Rutabaga to Swede (root vegetable), so I thought you might be interested to know that there is a discussion at Talk:Swede (root vegetable)#Requested move regarding reversing this move. --Tkynerd (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Robert Richie.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Richie.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Please do not delete material, or add your general views (as opposed to discussing improvement of an article) to a talk page. Thank you Hadrian89 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacked vs Contract terminated

All the proposals you have made are plain wrong, because there's no mutual consent, no contract termination and no break clauses in a coach being sacked in Italy. The contract is actually still valid, the club is obliged to regularly pay monthly salaries to the coach, and the club can even call him back to his previous role in case they decide so (which is common practice in Italy). In any case, if you want to find a better wording for that, please start a discussion thread on WP:FOOTY instead of pushing your own version without any consensus. Regards, --Angelo (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion, please contribute. It's not a matter of me vs. you, but a issue that involves all articles, so a decision has to come from as many involved people as possible. --Angelo (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page 1999 European Grand Prix has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page 1997 European Grand Prix. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Puntland. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw your Puntland edit and have now seen your other edits. What is your explanation of the Puntland edit? Do you agree to stop adding 'Europe' as though it was a country to articles about the European Grand Prix? At the moment, given your Puntland edit and your edits to GP articles, I'm inclined to block you. Dougweller (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question about your Puntland edit. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Grand Prix

For your information, were you aware that Japan is not a member of the Pacific Community? One of a few reasons why the Pacific Community flag is not appropriate for usage of labelling the Pacific Grand Prix. --Falcadore (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help with transliteration

Hello! Can you help put Diyaar Ahaaw into Arabic script? Thank you so much for your help! --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Heather Mills, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PatGallacher (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Heather Mills, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folkestone and Hythe (UK Parliament constituency)

Your recent edits on Folkestone and Hythe (UK Parliament constituency) [1], Damian Collins [2], David Laws [3] and Template:FolkestoneMPs [4] are bizarre -- on the face of it a deliberate attempt to knowingly seed false information in the encyclopedia.

What on earth were you trying to achieve with this? Jheald (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Laws, you may be blocked from editing. —Half Price 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing in a manner not consistent with a collaborative editing environment including, but not limited to, unsourced changes to statistics and other facts, refusal to to discuss your edits and several edits that constitute outright vandalism.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I'm going to take the high ground here, as I think edit warring would be inappropriate for someone like me to partake in, and I think it is unacceptable. I've opened a thread at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard asking for the input of uninvolved editors, and invite you to participate there. The thread can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalising articles while logged out and sockpuppetry - specifically, using a seperate account (Lucy-marie (talk · contribs)) to avoid scrutiny. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:34, 27 November 2011 (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).

Somali123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe you have exceeded your remit as an administrator by conducitng a check user without going through the formal process as you have to request a check user before just performing a check user, due to internet security and data protection issues and privacy issues. As such you have abused your position based on specualation of an unfounded wild accusation. I also do not believe the result of your check user. Somali123 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I however do believe the results. Secondly there's no requirement that someone has to request via WP:SPI. Alexandria (chew out) 23:58, 27 November 2011 (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.