User talk:Resourcer1

On reliable sources

Please do not use worldometers.info on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Coffee. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of discussion regarding your edits

Why dont you discuss your edits on Talk:Coffee? Zekenyan (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Coffee. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• 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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Laberkiste, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Laber□^T 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop adding incorrect info on habesha page

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zekenyan (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You are not responding to my issue. The page needs to go back to what it was before.Resourcer1 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. Zekenyan (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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. Zekenyan (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Resourcer1 Stop Edit Warring on the Abyssinian people article.Otakrem (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ethiopian Airlines, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added a link now.Resourcer1 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. The next time try to do it prior to receiving a warning.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, will do. I thought I would mess the page up if I attempted to add the link, but I now know how to do it. If you could also fix the page slightly because my reference doesn't seem to look like the rest at the bottom of the page (just a link on its own). Thank you.Resourcer1 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You are Notified for Deletion of My Comments

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Otakrem2 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Abyssinian people. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to request page protection many times to stop this edit war, have a look in the talk page. The method to request page protection is complicated and I have already mentioned the issues with that page on the report list and its talk page. The user Otakrem has made a duplicate account, and another suspected one and is causing havoc in both the talk page and the main page._Muffled Resourcer1 (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

False accusations and I am working with the Sockpuppet investigation. I have no reason to use multiple accounts besides that my current account is not working and I have informed the appropriate authorities on this. Awaiting their response. Resourcer1 has been deleting my comments in a Talkpage, disruptive, stalking, and vandalising my Comments.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop Deleting My Comments, I have a Right to Edit and Discuss Just like you!

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Abyssinian people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STOP DELETING MY COMMENTSOtakrem2 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Signatures on Posts

Please refrain from adding my signature (or anyone elses's come to that) to the end of your posts. --Elektrik Fanne 17:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought that is the way to message? Don't we use [ [ User: (their name)|(their name) ] ]?Resourcer1 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are trying to attract the attention of another editor then no, that merely adds a link to their user page (if they have one). Putting it at the end of a post makes it look like part of the signature. To attract attention: put "{{ping|<whowever>}}" or, if actually replying, "{{replyto|<whoever>}}" at the beginning of the post. And apparently this is my 1000th edit! --Elektrik Fanne 12:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that from now on! And congratulations on that... I'm lucky your 1000th edit was on my page :) Resourcer1 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Otakrem has come back with another username

Hi, see Abyssinian people article and once again it is a mess. I think Duqsene and Otakrem are same person. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha I believe Duqsene is the same as Otakrem too. I've seen that they dismissed a previous sockpuppet investigation on Duqsene but I have reported him again. My last report was successful and correct and I do believe this is him/her again.Resourcer1 (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Blanking on Abyssinian people

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Duqsene (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Medri Bahri 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 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. Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Abyssinian people

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. Duqsene (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop pretending to be a member of staff and stop adding contradicting and unnecessary contentResourcer1 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not pretending to be a member of staff, its a warning template. Read the citations your removing. Duqsene (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Duqsene Why don't you come and remove citation number 7 on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akele_Guzai seeming as you seem to be on some sort of mission. If you do then I will happily report you, seeming as I know your agenda. Resourcer1 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

tigrayans

photos of children can be Considered questionable images--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sennaitgebremariam Questionable but still can be put up so stop removing images. Also, you should put the image of the ruins in Axum in the 'Tigray Region' page and add more there. If you're so stern on images, look at this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_people why exactly are you not deleting images of children on here then? Stop with these random editsResourcer1 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

stop adding these two photographs of children, choose photographs of adults--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I will carry on adding it. Do not just come on the page and think you can delete what you want. You linked me to a guidelines page that did not say anything about images of children.Resourcer1 (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

These are two photos of unfit children, and one is not Ethiopian but an Arab child.

add a photo of an adult woman.--Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sennaitgebremariam BOTH are fit images. Check the URL. [1] and for clarification, this is the image of the childs sister that you assumed was Arab [2]. You are getting reported if you keep on edit warring.Resourcer1 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Tigrayans. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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).

Resourcer1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Bbb23 I do not believe that my block is necessary. On the Tigrayans page, the other user engaging in the edit war was using sources that are not considered trustworthy on this site and I was removing that. As well as this, the user was also removing images for no valid reason and insisted that the pictures there were not allowed, when in fact nothing is said in the guidelines about these images. I did try to let this user know on the pages talk page, as well as mine and his/her own talk page, but the user was still undoing edits. I understand I have violated the three-revert rule, but I will make sure next time I will not try to engage in such a war, however, I do believe I was making positive contributions, hence why the page was reverted to my last edit. Thank you. Resourcer1 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

For the most part individuals involved in an editor war believe they are right, this is why we have a policy in place to stop editors from constantly reverting each other. There are very few instances where edit-warring is accepted, believing you are right isn't one of them. I'm also concerned with your post in the "tigrayans" section above where, when asked to stop, you state "Nope, I will carry on adding it." You have many warnings for edit warring on this talk page, and I think a stronger explanation as to why the block is no longer necessary needs to be provided by you before an unblock can be granted.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Why does stating 'Nope, I will carry on adding it' become concerning? My current version at the time was the accepted version and that user is the one that removed the images and replaced them and also stated rules in guidelines that do not even exist (I read through them). I've tried discussing the edits in the talk page but there are more edits than responses from that user. Check the talk page for the Tigrayans article, another user also stated my edits were acceptable and nothing in the guidelines states anything different. An edit-warring ban may seem necessary if the users have not used the talk-page and are abusing it, but I have tried to discuss the issue with the user and he/she is misreading the guidelines and stating fake rules.Resourcer1 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason it is concerning is that "Nope, I will carry on adding it" is the precise battleground mentality that led to your account being blocked for edit warring. You violated the brightline three-revert rule that makes no exception for being "right". The way forward when involved in a dispute is to seek dispute resolution, not to continue reverting to your preferred version. This is what you need to demonstrate that you understand for an early unblock to be considered.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Block

{{unblock-auto|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Resourcer1". The reason given for Resourcer1's block is: "Violation of the three-revert rule".|Bbb23|7281364}}

I'm not sure what is happening. Came back to check now that my 48 hour block should have expired, but I am still blocked somehow.Resourcer1 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 It works now, sorry for the trouble.Resourcer1 (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Abysinian people

I think I have told you enough times to stop blanking pages. Next time I'll have to take this to ANI. This is the same issue EthiopianHabsha was banned for. Duqsene (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Duqsene Sorry but you can't just pick whatever scholars suit you and add them on the page. You say the two ethnic groups are considered 'Habesha proper', yet it's only one scholar that says this, and the languages on that page do not fit this. The page is a mess.Resourcer1 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually most sources assert the Amhara as the only Abyssinians. Go to the talk page of the article and explain your issue with the statement. Provide citations for your argument as well. Thanks. Duqsene (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, that page was never originally to do with Abyssinians... another user wrongfully suggested the 'Habesha' title should be changed to 'Abyssinian' people. This shouldn't have been the case, the two are definitely not synonymous and the term Habesha came about before Abyssinia existed. I am not talking about Abyssinians, but Habesha people. No one even uses the term 'Abyssinian' presently, so the page title is ridiculous.Resourcer1 (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oxford asserts Habesha/Abyssinia is synonymous [3] Duqsene (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello, I'm Kostas20142. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Quatit, Eritrea— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Quatit, Eritrea. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kostas20142 (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Kostas20142 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Kostas20142 It was constructive, the language it is being translated into is wrong. Firstly it is a Tigrinya speaking town, secondly it is not an Arabic word, thirdly, they are both recognised languages. The former makes more sense in this case, so it should not be written in Arabic. It doesn't appear constructive to you because you can either not see the characters or does not know what the word means. Since when was it a rule to have everything in Arabic? Read the demography part of the town.Resourcer1 (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You are definately right. Please accept my apologies and feel free to revert me --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Explain your changes

Please explain and discuss your major changes in the Tigrayans and Tigrinyas art. See the discus on Tigrayans art.?Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you are edit warring in Tigrinyas and Tigrayans art., why can't you discuss? Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Authorityofwiki You're the banned user with another account now, am I right? I may be filing a report on your account because of this. The two are an ethnolinguistic group.Resourcer1 (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no qualms with the term "ethnolinguistic". My issue is the james bruce source which clearly states the divisions of the "amhara, tigre" regions. Please read the james bruce source and tell me otherwise? lets discuss. banned user?Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Authorityofwiki What is the difference (apart from ethno/lingusitic) between mine and your edits then in the James Bruce part? I barely see a difference...Resourcer1 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the james bruce source where he states why he divided the abyssinia into amhara and tigre. He says that he called it Tigre because of language. The part I have issue with is the Hadawi part because it goes into an irrelevant detail. james bruce statement on his division of tigre agrees with the term "ethnolinguistic" [4] pg 229 .Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Authorityofwiki The term 'ethnolinguistic' can be kept then and you may add your edit again.Resourcer1 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

fyi Read Henry Salt's writing where he attributes the james bruce logic for the linguistic division as "provinces". This doesn't necessarily mean that all people living in these arbitrary territories are of the same ethno-linguistic group ie (non-tigrinya speakers). james bruce notes that disclaimer as well in pg 229.Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Authorityofwiki I know, but you are mistaking the page for the region, hence why in the second paragraph it should remain as ethnolinguistic, as the page is talking about Tigrayans and Tigrinya speakers in Eritrea, not the Tigray and Eritrea region.Resourcer1 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The statements are in both Tigrayans and Tigrinyas art. The Tigrayans art is specific to Tigrinya-speakers of the Tigray region while the Tigrinyas art is specific to Tigrinya-speakers of Eritrea. My point is the origin of the "ethnolinguistic" grouping is James Bruce's arbitrary division of "Abyssinia" into linguistic "provinces". This most likely led to what we term as "ethnolinguistic". We need more sources than james bruce, henry salt which are primary sources. Wikipedia guidelines require secondary sources that use the primary sources. If you find any, please do share. Honestly, there should be secondary sources(reliable) that refer to them as "ethnolinguistic" otherwise this is OR.Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Resourcer1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Resourcer1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)