User talk:Habesha212

March 2024

Hello, I'm Padgriffin. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Kingdom of Aksum—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fabrications on this page are appalling hence why the sources are so poor. An Agenda driven page should not be allowed Habesha212 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite strongly agree with you that the sources are unacceptable & the information bad. However, you've really got to make the case well in order to remove sources material, or the edits just won't last. In the present instance, this is going to be slow work. Pathawi (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided sources as well as a strong argument, the individual is too belligerent to make the changes. Habesha212 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 19 edits, and none of them cite a specific source. You will also have to stop with the personal attacks immediately. If you can't comment on content without insinuating your fellow editors have some insidious agenda, then you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Remsense诉 14:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made coherent arguments and provided sources on the talk page, which I stated earlier and is visible to all. I do not have to claim insidious agenda when it is clear the sources are poor, the US printing office is indicative of such. Please do not use language to try and disarm me. The person in question is belligerent that is clear all over the talk page. Habesha212 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have to claim it, then don't claim it. You are required to assume good faith in other editors, full stop. Remsense诉 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well no I am not, since it is clear in their interactions and the sources that their intentions is not to be honest but rather to skew history.The flagrant lie that Ezana promoted the script in the 4th century and that a foreign language and script was used prior, not to mention he claims annexation of an area that never happened is a deliberate fabrication. They have created two pages with erroneous information.I have every right to call it out and I am not required to do anything. Habesha212 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are, unfortunately. Further personal attacks will result in a visit to ANI, final warning. Remsense诉 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of wikipedia is to discuss it on the talk page and provide sources which I have. Please do not threaten me and you will have to prove personal attacks. Calling someone belligerent which they clearly have been to several people is not a personal attack, it is a fact. I realise you do not actually address what I write but rather resort to threats. Habesha212 (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense 诉 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page Ban restriction from Kingdom of Aksum and Talk:Kingdom of Aksum

Hello. This message is to notify you that you are subject to a page ban restriction from Kingdom of Aksum and Talk:Kingdom of Aksum for 1 year, due to your disruptive editing. As a reminder, that article is subject to increased scrutiny and additional remedies as authorized by the Arbitration Committee here. During your page ban, you may not edit the listed article, it's associated talk page, or any subpages of either the article or talk page. Violations of this page ban will result in you being indefinitely blocked from editing. If you wish to appeal this restriction, you may do so through the standard appeals process. This enforcement action is being logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#Horn_of_Africa_(CT/HORN). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sabean colonization of Africa. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pages need to be reviewed there is a running theme here. I have now provided updated data. Thank you 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:D9E4:167C:7D4F:754A (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "updated data" is unreferenced, and also appears to be a copyright violation. I'm starting to see a running theme here as well.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the copyright violation? Taken from a scholarly source

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANCIENT ERITREA, Edited by Peter R. Schmidt, Matthew C. Curtis and Zelalem Teka 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:D9E4:167C:7D4F:754A (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to explain why it was reverted and why you have allowed other material which is not referenced nor provides any sources on that page? I would like an explanation as to such. I have gone to the talk page and explained why the data is old so the question is why are you prohibiting such information Habesha212 (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and copied from [1] (although perhaps it's copied from your the source you mentioned, doesn't matter it is still a violation. @Swatjester I think further sanctions may be needed. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is copied from the source which is clear to see. Since I have understood the intention with these pages is not to be honest nor is it to provide accurate information with valid sources. The pages on Eritrea/Ethiopia all follow a theme and the page in question mentions colonization of Zimbabwe by south Arabians which is very old Eurocentric

tripe.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/18/great-zimbabwe-medieval-lost-city-racism-ruins-plundering

In fact I have also noticed something on the page which exposes the page in itself. So please do leave the page as it is.

Regards Habesha212 (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic

Clearly the above is not happening. Habesha212 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

topic banned from all pages including discussions relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes

You have been sanctioned for continued disruptive editing after warnings, ANI discussions and breaching their earlier topic ban

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that with your recent contributions to the Ge'ez script talkpage you are violating the above topic ban, which appears to have not yet been lifted. I think you are aware of the consequences of this. LandLing 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to a comment and rightfully so. This is a form of violence to silence certain members. Habesha212 (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. LandLing 16:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to respond to comments on an area where you are topic banned. A topic ban is complete and unconditional -- you are not allowed to participate on *any* pages or discussions relating to the topic. There is no exception for "I was just responding to someone." The terms of your sanction were explained quite clearly to you, and you've had ample opportunity to review the applicable policy. It appears that lesser sanctions are not going to work, and that the underlying behavior problems that the topic ban and partial blocks previously instituted were intended to address, are still here. As such, we'll have to implement more significant sanctions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to provide a clear and coherent response as to why i was banned, not merely tell me that I was. In what way was my comment a violation and why am I not allowed to participate/engage in the Ge'ez script page. People can respond to me and yet I can not do the same. Why have I been banned on Ge'ez page, what violation occurred there? It is blatant silencing and you have exposed the nature of wikipedia. I have screenshotted and exposed the conduct on these sites. Habesha212 (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just you unhappy that you have to follow the rules for a topic ban like anyone else. A topic ban restricts your right to edit and that's been clearly explained to you. Your post should not have been made, and the fact that someone responded to you doesn't mean that you can then keep breaking the topic ban. Go ahead and post whatever you want to offline, no one here cares. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you attempt to respond to my question or not? Habesha212 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

diverting from it, is not helping you. Why does me responding to a comment on the Ge'ez script consitute a violation and what is the violation? Habesha212 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recording it all so that everyone is aware of your conduct. Habesha212 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your question. You clearly don’t understand your topic ban despite the fact it clearly says “ topic banned from all pages including discussions relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes”. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that because you want to push an agenda. Funny how you banned me from writing about that area. You didn’t answer anything at all. You do not have an answer. Habesha212 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no interest in the topic area. So no possible agenda except to make sure our policies are followed. Now you are blocked for a year you need to find another hobby. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely have no clue of this topic area more like it. None of your cronies do. What is interesting is the sources that use make a mockery of your page. Well done 94.8.242.219 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of your topic ban on the page Ge'ez script, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 year Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."