User talk:Dotohelp
October 2019[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Oromo people, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oromia Special Zone Surrounding Finfinne. 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 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.in reference to your further edits on Menelik II Sethie (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Sethie: Thanks you corrected the format. I edited through old opera mine which I did not realize I messed the format while I am correcting the punctuation. As you saw or you can check, I did not remove any thing. Glad for reaching me. --dotohelp (talk)
Menelik II[edit]
- Thank you for reaching out to me. However, I did not originally revert your edit. It was @Auric: who reverted your edits to a version that happened to be mine. That editor will be the one who can answer you questions. At a minimum, though, your edit deleted the entire bottom portion of the article (references, "see also" section, categories, etc). As for any other changes and their reasoning, I suggest you ask that editor.
Note that I have restored Auric's edits to repair the bottom of the article. If you choose to include your other changes, please be sure not to delete all these sections at the bottom.
Article for Deletion[edit]
Dear Dotohelp, you are trying to nominate an article for deletion (Oromo migrations). You have tried twice to accomplish this by placing a major amount of text into the article page as such, which not only disrupts the article and may be seen as non-constructive editing, if you do it twice, it also accomplishes nothing towards your goal, as your nomination does not get registered that way. So, if you really want to go on with your project, instead of just reverting my revert of your edit a second time, please understand that nominating an article for deletion is not a thing that you can do without fully understanding the correct procedure. The place to read up on this is here. Once you have followed all the precautions regarding alternatives to a deletion process, you then need to follow the three steps listed in the section "How to nominate a single page for deletion". It is important that you place nothing on the page itself but the short nominations tag.
Now all this being said, let me tell you that your effort to get the article deleted, let alone speedily deleted, has a zero chance of success. The requirements for speedy deletion are not met at all by the article (it is not blatant vandalism, no infringement on anyone's intellectual property rights, no patent nonsense - please read the page Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for information of what would be required), and your complaints about the article are not even sufficient to justify any other kind of deletion process. You claim that the whole of the article is based only one real source, but this did not stop Pankhurst, Shillington and Ishikawa to pick up that primary source and write more on Oromo migrations in reputable secondary sources - exactly what is required to justify the inclusion of any information in Wikipedia. I understand that you do not agree with what these writers conclude, but their contributions prove that the topic of Oromo migrations exists as an academic subject. Accordingly, you will find that you will not get any consensus for your idea to have this article deleted. According to Wikipedia policies, it cannot be deleted. You are really just wasting your time with this. A better use of that time would be to find reputable secondary sources that balance the findings of the said authors, and include that information in the article. Landroving Linguist (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- now that was a better attempt. Let's see where it will get you. Landroving Linguist (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Landroving Linguist: Why it seems a fight between you and me?
- I hope it does not come across as that. We have already had some good interaction, and I hope there will be more of that. Please don't take my actions personal - these days you show up on pages that I am watching, and for those pages I take action whenever someone does something that is not according to the rules of Wikipedia. The pages that I am watching, out of personal experience and interest, have to do with Ethiopia, its languages and peoples. Until a few years ago there was little to do on them, but the recent upsurge of nationalism and strive between the various ethnic groups have let to the understandable desire of many Ethiopians that Wikipedia should reflect their, and often only their, perspective of things. You seem to be no exception in this. Many of these editors are new to Wikipedia and therefore don't understand the rules - most often they believe that it is possible to change articles based on the simple and clear knowledge they have of the situation. But this is not the case. Particularly when topics are contested, as they are when it comes to the interaction between ethnic groups in a country, it is important that the rules of Wikipedia are followed to the letter: only information can be included that is accompanied by published reliable secondary sources; and information that is accompanied by published reliable secondary sources cannot be removed. You will find that my interactions in the past few months have shown me to be impartial and even-handed. There are Amhara, Somali and Oromo nationalists trying to do their thing on Wikipedia these days, and I take action whenever one of them breaks the rule of Wikipedia. This happens to be you sometimes, but I also observe that you are genuinely willing to learn how things work here, and I commend you for that. I notice that after being reverted you start asking the right questions, and that you inform yourself about the correct procedures. In this way you may develop into a valuable and respected editor of Wikipedia. But this is only really possible when you don't allow your own edits to be clouded by your strong national bias. In fact, it may be better for your development as a Wikipedia editor if you stay away from Oromo subjects for a while and work on things in which you are less politically involved. This would help you to gain some good editing experience where you don't get constantly reverted. I hope you don't mind me giving you this piece of advice. Warm greetings, Landroving Linguist (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Landroving Linguist: It is nice to hear someone is interested and watching in Ethiopian history. I wish I would not be here at wikipedia to tell/correct/balance stories other than reading/creating/adding articles. I wish you are Ethiopian that knows what is going on in the country(from all sides beside the news). I read many articles that are not neutral point of view but the claim that Oromo called Galla is the main reason I ended up being an editor. As you may know no one Ethiopia dare to say Galla unless he wanted to risk his life. But what if the foriegn read article on wikipedia and call Oromo by Galla. Whose problem is that? Wikipedia? That is my main reason. I dont even want the other extreme side stories removed. I just want both sides together let the reader judges. That is why I did not try to change Oromo migration under Oromo people article where other side stories are there too. Though someone created Oromo migration article wishing Wikipedia to be game changer. It is not in Ethiopia. So the damage is less which means doesn't matter much wether it was deleted or not. But I tried my share that is what matter for me. (Sorry for my English)
- Yes, although I am not an Ethiopian, I am aware of the insult that is felt when Oromos hear the name Galla applied to them, and all effort should be made to avoid that name wherever that is possible. Unfortunately, it is not very long ago that the name Gallas was even used in academic publications, usually by people who were not aware in those days that the name was insulting. Therefore, a number of publications which use that name sometimes will have to be cited in Wikipedia, when they have otherwise good and sometimes even the only information on a given subject. There are other insulting ethnic names in Ethiopia, such as Shanqalla, Walamo, Janjero, Gimira - all these names were used in academic publications until a few decades ago because people didn't know any better. Now we must make it clear that these names cannot be used, except when reading them in good-faith historic writings. Landroving Linguist (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I hope it does not come across as that. We have already had some good interaction, and I hope there will be more of that. Please don't take my actions personal - these days you show up on pages that I am watching, and for those pages I take action whenever someone does something that is not according to the rules of Wikipedia. The pages that I am watching, out of personal experience and interest, have to do with Ethiopia, its languages and peoples. Until a few years ago there was little to do on them, but the recent upsurge of nationalism and strive between the various ethnic groups have let to the understandable desire of many Ethiopians that Wikipedia should reflect their, and often only their, perspective of things. You seem to be no exception in this. Many of these editors are new to Wikipedia and therefore don't understand the rules - most often they believe that it is possible to change articles based on the simple and clear knowledge they have of the situation. But this is not the case. Particularly when topics are contested, as they are when it comes to the interaction between ethnic groups in a country, it is important that the rules of Wikipedia are followed to the letter: only information can be included that is accompanied by published reliable secondary sources; and information that is accompanied by published reliable secondary sources cannot be removed. You will find that my interactions in the past few months have shown me to be impartial and even-handed. There are Amhara, Somali and Oromo nationalists trying to do their thing on Wikipedia these days, and I take action whenever one of them breaks the rule of Wikipedia. This happens to be you sometimes, but I also observe that you are genuinely willing to learn how things work here, and I commend you for that. I notice that after being reverted you start asking the right questions, and that you inform yourself about the correct procedures. In this way you may develop into a valuable and respected editor of Wikipedia. But this is only really possible when you don't allow your own edits to be clouded by your strong national bias. In fact, it may be better for your development as a Wikipedia editor if you stay away from Oromo subjects for a while and work on things in which you are less politically involved. This would help you to gain some good editing experience where you don't get constantly reverted. I hope you don't mind me giving you this piece of advice. Warm greetings, Landroving Linguist (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
February 2020[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Abiy Ahmed, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. SoWhy 17:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Oromo Protests[edit]
Hello, Dotohelp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oromo Protests".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)