User talk:Mooproop1

Vandalism and discriminatory speech

This new user works on (i.e. vandalises) one page only: Menelik II. His activity consists of repeated section blanking (four times on 15 October 2021) and hurling insults (see: User contributions for Mooproop1). In several of his messages he uses insults to another editor, such as “Galla” (etnic slur for Oromo, litterally meaning ‘slave’) or “genocider”. Besides repeated section blanking without opening a Talk page, the use of discriminatory language is in contradiction with Wikipedia:English Wikipedia non-discrimination policy. I suggest a 30-days ban for this user.Rastakwere (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Boud. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Wikipedia is based on sources. You cannot remove sourced material without explaining why you think there is something wrong. Your edit descriptions did not explain why you removed information attributed to reliable sources. Please start a discussion section at Talk:Menelik II if you think that the sources are incorrect or misleading. If you can find serious sources that disagree with the sources currently used, then you can improve the neutral point of view of the article.

Please show respect for other editors. The use of the ethnic slur "Galla" in this edit comment or any other insult is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Mooproop1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mooproop1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Menelik II, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Menelik II. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Menelik II. Anaxial (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Menelik II. Equine-man (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Menelik II

Your recent editing history at Menelik II 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. — Manti core 23:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Boud (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism: 19 October

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. This was your unconstructive edit, repeating past editing behaviour. Boud (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mooproop1 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: ). Thank you. Equine-man (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Recidivism at Menelik II

Hello, I'm Boud. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. This was your repeat of previous behaviour of removing sourced material and sources. There are two talk page sections: Talk:Menelik II#Aanolee massacre, Talk:Menelik II#Aanollee 2 where you may discuss details of how to edit seeking consensus with other editors on appropriate references and how to summarise the information from those sources. Boud (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were constructive I put my sources. This guy just added all this mean stuff on menelik when the tigray war started. He should have to prove more to put that stuff and also why are you talking bad stuff about him on his first few sentences about him. Why is there nothing bad written about queen elizabeth on her first few sentences? Just putting down black people or something because you are a racist? He has a big statue in the capital of the country because he represents all ethiopians, stop spreading hate and trying to divide black people racist. Meneliks prime minister and war minister was an oromo. Stop spreading hate I put my sources disproving what this guy put. Why you keep deleting? He's the one who added this info more recently. Why isn't he the one who has to prove more to these unfounded claims? You are favoring the guy who changed and added info for some reason. He's the one edit warring and adding info not me. I'm just reverting the damage he's doing to the page but you are favoring him as if the info he added has been there a long time. Stop being a racist black divider. I know what you are doing.

This guy just added ...
- If the sources say that Menelik was mean, then that's what Wikipedia should say.
Why is there nothing bad written about queen elizabeth...
- This is called whataboutism. It is irrelevant to the page on Menelik II. The British empire can reasonably be argued to be responsible for crimes against humanity, including inducing massive famine because it was in the empire's economic interests, which does not exclude it from being a crime against humanity under post-WWII legal norms. You are most welcome to see if those events can be attributed to QEII by reliable sources and convince other editors to include the information on the QEII page in appropriate places. But it is not the issue here.
Just putting down black people or something ...
- My guess is that both the perpetrators and victims in the Menelik II case had quite dark skin. But assuming bad faith about my editing is a violation of WP:AGF. Please read WP:AGF and make sure that you understand it.
Stop spreading hate.
- This is another violation of WP:AGF and a distraction from the issue: the sources, including the most reliable source we have, by Gnamo Abbas, who spent twenty years collecting all the written and oral sources he could find, say that the massacre happened. The right to truth is not aimed at promoting hate. In fact, the restorative justice is generally seen as requiring knowledge of the truth - based on sources and evidence. Wikipedia only uses external sources. It's up to historians to judge the truth of abuses from a century or more ago, and for legal courts and tribunals to determine the truth of more recent abuses.
Stop being a racist black divider. I know what you are doing.
- This is again a violation of WP:AGF.

If you can focus on discussing the actual sources, what they say, and what text we can use from them, then you might avoid being blocked again. @Equine-man and Materialscientist: you two might wish to add clarifications. Boud (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure this editor removed the same properly referenced edits 18 times within two weeks, despite a few editors warning them not to. And it looks like he has done it again as soon as his ban expired. Equine-man (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put my sources and you keep removing them even though this guy added his more recently. What makes his sources better than mine? He added his just during the war to stir more conflict. And yeah I do believe you are racist. You just wanna divide the blacks and make it seem like we have no good leader. This man never cut off a breast and I showed my sources. Stop tarnishing a great mans name just because he beat your people in war. The sources I used are cerified by real evidence. Racist

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this guy just blocked me for calling him out for being racist wow wikipedia, now I see why you hate ethnics and why teachers say not to use your source. Bias place and assisting in the amhara genocide. congratulations