Hello Bysomalilander, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Somali National Movement has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeilNtalk to me first i didn't know he was a sock puppet second even because he is a sock puppet that does not make us wonder from the truth. hope you guys who are editors here are not trigger happy one accused me of being a sock puppet and you almost blocked me out so take it easy guys .Bysomalilander (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...so much. omg. According to the SPI the account is unrelated (despite acting the exact same way), so the situation is more complicated than I first thought. Maybe we should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Somalia for guidance? Sro23 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. Please stop. AcidSnow (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why
Is there an underlying reason as to why you are restoring the work of various puppets? This is quite confusing since you have already been informed that you should be doing this by multiple users including an admin. AcidSnow (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the revert that you and Sro23 are doing is destructive to the the WikiProject Somaliland and about User:NeilN i have read ,and says clearly (This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand))`any way lets talk in talk page about every page that was revert .Bysomalilander (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tip
There's no need to copy a user's signature in your replies. If you want to mention them, just figure out their user name and use that in a template. For example, to mention me, type {{u|NeilN}} --NeilNtalk to me19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Culture of Somalia a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Culture of Somaliland. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bysomalilander, you did the revert, you take responsibility for it, especially as the editor you were reverting to was a sockpuppet. Did you blindly revert or did you actually read the text? If you read the text, it should have been obvious it had been copied. --NeilNtalk to me18:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN take it easy man so what if i did a Rv without reading the text is it a crime and by the way in the link you gave me it says that a sockpuppet shouldn't be Rvt for just being a sockpuppet or maybe there is a wiki law says otherwise you can supply us with .Bysomalilander (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, hes still blindly reverting, see here: [1]. He even admits to doing so in his edit summary, see here: [2]. So it's seems that he has a disregard for Wikipedias policies. It's also possible that he did it to avoid committing a fourth revert since he couldn't do it on the Somaliland passport page. So it is possible that he does also care (as long it doesn't come back to bit him). However, per WP:POINT it most likely will. Shall I take this to the edit war notice board since he has done this before in a bid to avoid a block? AcidSnow (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you the one who accused me twice has i remember and its you who rvt me for no good reason even after i showed you your own link in this talk page on Here and about your mention i wanted to show you how you try to trap me from your words (It's also possible that he did it to avoid committing a fourth revert) just want to show you that you must follow the rules Here so don't put words in my mouth and stop for the last time i am telling you don't even think for me ever by saying ( So it's seems that he has a disregard for Wikipedias policies) what is that so now you know my inner self God have mercy on us by the way here is a discussion between me and a other editor just today and we came to a common ground Here.Bysomalilander (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You literally followed me to an article, that you initially never edited before, to revert me to make a point...... Nonetheless, I do apologize if it looked like I was putting words in your mouth as it would be wrong to do so. More importantly, it wasn't my intention and I wouldn't want others to do it to me. However, this doesn't excuse you for your actions in regards to: edit warring, name calling, blindly reverting, or reverting to make a point. AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi content dispute
It looks like you're involved in a content dispute at Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi. Can you explain, at the article's talk page, why the information you're removing should be removed? The situation would really be helped with some more context about what's going on here.
