User talk:Habeshan negus

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Habeshan negus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 13:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

February 2020[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Battle of Adwa, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the information in your edit is not in chronological order. Also, it contains commentary in addition to the facts. It has no citation to a reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is no suggestion in the sourced content that the Italians expected the Ethiopians not to fight.

From the Wikipedia guideline page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: :"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

From the Wikipedia guideline page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view. "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."

"Do not editorialize. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializaing. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your second edit which I have reverted may or may not be correct in whole or in part. Again, you have cited no source. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes. Also, with respect to the battle being the only time an African army defeated a European army, I would suggest that the Battle of Isandlwana would count as such an African victory so there is an apparent problem with that statement. This not shown as a "warning" because I did not characterize the problem in a way to send such a message. Donner60 (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i specifiacally say african victory in major battle against European power Habeshan negus (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Laterthanyouthink. 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 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. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Asartea. I noticed that in this edit to Amhara people, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Asartea ^Trick ^| ^Treat 08:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Amhara people. Your edits appear to be 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. Serols (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Amhara people, you may be blocked from editing. Asartea ^Trick ^| ^Treat 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Amhara people. 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 ~~~~}}. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user:Habeshan negus, I noticed that you created a new Wikipedia account, User:Amdetsion the conqueror. Please note that this is neither allowed nor, in your case, necessary, as you have been blocked for only 24 hours. By now you should be able to make edits with this account. Please quickly deactivate your new account before it gets you into trouble. Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Habeshan negus. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use talk pages for insults once more and expect to be blocked[edit]

I've deleted your edit at Talk:Amhara people. If you want sanctions against an editor, use WP:ANI. If you want to calmly discuss your sources or sources used in a page, you can use the talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]