User talk:KZebegna

November 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm 4thfile4thrank. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Defeatism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my well referenced (and verified) edits, without a legitimate reason[edit]

Dear @KZebegna:. Sir, please stop reverting my well referenced edits, without a legitimate reason. There was has no good reason for you to undo my work, I was well referenced, backed by BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Amnesty International, The New Humanitarian, Yahoo! News , Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy. These all are not "inimical journalists" as you KZebegna categorizes them.

All my edits are verified on the references I gave along them. I was following Wikipedia's policies of improving articles by the addition of verifiable information. You should only remove unverified information. If you find anything that is not verifiable on the references I gave, then please point it out (but as you may have already checked, all my edits were verifiable on the given references).

With all due respect sir, please read Wikipedia Verifiability policy. It states "Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research".

It further says "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Therefore, even if believe that all BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Amnesty International, The New Humanitarian, Yahoo! News , Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy are "inimical journalists", it is not what your belief that matters, but rather whether you can verify if these are "inimical journalists".

If you disagree, please point it out to a Wikipedia Administrator, instead of reverting my edits.

Kind regard, Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maryam Ts'iyon massacre; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaged in an edit war. You are obviously just trying to get me removed from the equation since you can't handle any disagreement. I insist you withdraw your false and spurious accusation against me. KZebegna (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove maintenance templates unless you fix the problem. And don't go claiming all kinds of things on the talk page unless you have SOURCES TO BACK IT UP. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any maintenance templates. Keep your false accusations off my page, you are not welcome here and you are barking up the wrong tree with this foolishness to try to get any voices for Ethiopia removed for your sickening agenda. KZebegna (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Ts'iyon massacre[edit]

Saw your edit summary. All content on Wikipedia must be sourced. Allegations should be omitted. Unsourced allegations more so. Challenged, unsourced content should not be added back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on the talk page where all the editors on that page participate. I dont want you on my page either. KZebegna (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks and edit warring by User:KZebegna. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia as you have engaged in persistent edit warring, incivility and non-neutral editing.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I would be pleased if this case got more attention and more eyes on what just happened here. KZebegna (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I wish to appeal this case to a bureaucrat or higher, the reason for my being muzzled unjustly needs more eyes and deserves a fair chance to appeal the arbitrary injustice of it. KZebegna (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no "supervisor," only us admins. Bureaucrats' remit do not extend to these matters. Please review WP:GAB, because only so many of these kind of too-terse-to-be-useful unblock requests are going to be allowed, so I would suggest that you don't squander this opportunity. You've alleged coverup of child sexual abuse on the part of multiple editors multiple times, which is beyond the pale in its egregiousness. Your other contributions also present acute WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct and personal attacks, even if not as extreme. This is what you need to address, but again, a WP:NOTTHEM approach is a waste of everyone's time and will lead nowhere. El_C 13:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

El C (talk · contribs) all I can possibly learn from this is that you are okay with whitewashing the info from the article and muzzling any who object to that. KZebegna (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this likely constitutes a competence matter which you will be unable to resolve. Because, repeatedly disparaging other editors (at times, in an extremely egregious manner), is a text book example of not being compatible with a collaborative project. At this point, I'm even unsure if this is meant as a provocation or just a profound lack of self-awareness, but I suppose for our immediate purposes it doesn't really matter, either way. El_C 17:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KZebegna, I hope you realize that the group of people you are accusing of terrible crimes are the same people to judge whether it is safe for Wikipedia for you to be unblocked. You will have to be a lot more persuasive and apologetic for any admin to risk giving you a second chance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am 53 but strangely enough only here and nowhere else do I get talked to like I am a child by someone acting like they think they are my mother. I have a clear conscience for my part in this matter, but this is just another blow on your website's reputation, and your reputation does seem to grow globally all the time in mysterious ways you can't perceive. KZebegna (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]