User talk:Muktar allebbey

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

September 2011

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Sanaag. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. I've replaced your comment with a {{Fact}} tag. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sanaag. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. I think it's a bit ironic that you flagged the text in question for lacking sources, but did not provide any citations when you modified it. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Togdheer. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Without any explanation, you've also been removing text that already cites its sources. Gyrofrog (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Buuhoodle, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Buuhoodle was changed by Muktar allebbey (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.86155 on 2011-09-13T23:20:21+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Togdheer. 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gyrofrog (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for resuming disruptive behavior immediately after block lifted (revert-warring and failing to discuss disputes you may have on article talk pages). 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sanaag. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. You cited britannica.com after changing demographic information. However, your citation does not support the text, and in fact does not mention Isaaq nor Warangali (in fact it doesn't even mention Sanaag). Gyrofrog (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Sanaag. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. See also: User talk:109.58.47.102 Gyrofrog (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You rewrote the Isaaq article using sources that are non-English and self-published. Please review Wikipedia's policy regarding Verifiability and the guideline regarding reliable sources. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Darod‎. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Isaaq shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please see the recent comments at Talk:Isaaq#Source. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Isaaq has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Gyrofrog (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Habib azar.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Habib azar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Isaaq. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Now you've simply reverted to the earlier version, about which User:Middayexpress already explained the problems. For example, you've re-added the unsourced information about the tomb in Yemen, but it also re-introduces other problems that had been cleaned up in the meantime. Gyrofrog (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Isaaq shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Kuru (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1] Kuru (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Isaaq. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Note that this revert was your first edit following the end of your previous block. Gyrofrog (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Isaaq. 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 the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gyrofrog (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: 193.11.185.65 (talk). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuous disruptive editing (including edits made from various accounts and/or IP addresses), as you did at Isaaq. 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. Gyrofrog (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: 95.209.36.147 (talk). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

because the eidter Gyrofrog used and blocked my old account muktar allebbey simply on false claims using a IP number which is not even mine and by the way i have IP in Sweden and the one used to block my old account is in the UK thanks hope don't do the same mistake . Muktar allebbey (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request does not address the issue of your block. In fact, it's rather garbled and wandering in construction. If you continue to post unblock requests that do not address the block issue, you jeopardize your ability to edit this page. Please attempt to demonstrate that you understand what action or actions, or lack thereof, that brought you to this point and explain how you intend to move forward. Any other use of the unblock template is usually construed as disruptive. Tiderolls 00:14, 5 June 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

PS my other account i have written on my talk page that i am muktar allebbey on mohikan allebey page and there for you can not accused me of using sock puppet thanks. Muktar allebbey (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request at a time please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2012 (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 has today created another block-evading account, which was promptly blocked, and has requested unblock - see User talk:Mohikan allebbey -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make comments here, please just add them below - you don't need to place every comment in an unblock request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS my other account i have written on my talk page that i am muktar allebbey on mohikan allebey page and there for you can not accuse me of using sock puppet thats lame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muktar allebbey (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 June 2012‎

You must not create new accounts to avoid your block while blocked on this one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: 212.118.232.237 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), 109.58.45.196 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]