User talk:Wizeone2

Welcome!

Hello, Wizeone2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medri Bahri

The former political state of Medri Bahri lacks a flag on wikipedia. Do you know if this is the correct flag [1] Duqsene (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duqsene I am glad you brought this up. I was looking for the medri bahri flag yesterday and the first 2 searches where this flag you are showing me but i am really not sure. It seems to be the most likely medri bahri flag as nationalist Eritrean liberation groups during the war of independence such as the eplf had basically the same symbol such as the star but the colour is very different. I am not certain but the flag you showed me is most likely the Medri Bahri flag. Wizeone2 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wizeone2 Ok I asked because it looks bad in the Abyssinia Adal war article with no flag. I'll look into the process to upload pictures on here or you can do it, if you figure it out before me. Duqsene (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Bertdrunk. I noticed that you made a change to an article, First Italo-Ethiopian War, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bertdrunk (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RileyBugz. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to 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. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at First Italo-Ethiopian War, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Lalibela. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, May I state despite the fact they are not sourced my changes were well known accepted facts they were not misinformation, I admit I don't know how to source properly so I that is why I didn't source them. And may I also ask how come on the page Al-Khazneh states that petra was 'Built by Arab Nabateans' but that is not sourced so how come that edit has not been reverted or the editor receive the same warning as me? Wizeone2 (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because no one noticed it or that it is not disputed. In fact I can't find it - what page? Anyway, you need to learn how to source, I'm not the only one has has said you need to source. See the videos at Wikipedia:Meetup/UMassAmherst/Intro to Wikipedia. And of course read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS as well. It isn't obvious to me that travel was dangerous, and I know Saladin allowed freedom of religion. So, we need good academic sources for this. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, The page is called Al-Khazneh it say it was made by 'arab nabateans' but is not sourced, so I expect equal treatment towards them, also many documentaries say king lalibela built the churches because it was too dangerous for christians to travel to jersualem after its capture by saladin that is why I wrote that. Also It is not a disputed fact that Ethiopians constructed lalibela as it is said by buxton that the churches are sole product of Ethiopian medival civilisation, infact the only scholar who even only slightly disputed it was a cult theorist. Also one of the moderators Riley Bugz, fair play to him admitted to me he made a mistake reverting my changes on the Eritrea page because he agreed they were actually constructive and that they were sourced and that he made a mistake so not all the things you see here are my fault and I will also learn to source..Wizeone2 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you think something can be sourced easily as the sources are in the most relevant article so long as you verify the sources you should copy them. And problems in one article don't justify issues with another article. I'm not disputing who built it. Doug Weller talk 06:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug WellerI understand comparing to other issues in other pages does not justify anything but my point is if it was they deserve equal treatment to what I have if they haven't sourced it either.

November 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Kingdom of Aksum. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve discussed this above. Even if true and sourced, it wouldn’t belong in the lead. Where it would belong of course I’d in the articles for the two ethnic groups. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Ok I understand Wizeone2 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Aksum

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 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. 20:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Kingdom of Aksum. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any more personal attacks take place the next block will be lengthy. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

]@[[[[User:Acroterion] He continues his edit-warring: [2] [3] [4] [5] LeGabrie (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

]@[[[[User:Acroterion] Now I'm just being lied about, I simply wrote the correct information and now he is accusing me of something just to get me banned, he is the one that keeps reverting everything so he is edit warring. Wizeone2 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two weeks for personal attacks and determined edit-warring. You were warned that more personal attacks would bring sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

]@[[[[User:Acroterion] What personal attack have I made? Please explain to me? This is ridiculous, he accused me of edit warring and I did the same thing Why I'm I getting banned?. Wizeone2 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've resumed edit-warring and added "Now I'm just being lied about." You may not edit-war and you have no business calling other editors liars. Acroterion (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

]@[[[[User:Acroterion] How have I edit warred when the latest edit I made on that page was purely correct information that was not reverted or challenged afterwards? And Yes I can when they post fake information. Wizeone2 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You went right back to the subject and made substantially the same edits, and you attacked another editor. You're blocked. The next block is likely to be indefinite if you don't reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

]@[[[[User:Acroterion] I don't know maybe il get banned for making a spelling mistake, but how is saying now " I've been lied about" wrong when I have been accused of edit warring when you have just admitted that there was no revert, so there was no edit warring in this particular case, and therefore I was lied about. The edit is not the same because I added more context to the description of the foreign image made in 1907 which is important considering it displays a White man with blonde hair as a King of Ethiopia which is absurd and rather hilarious, the fact that Wikipedia thinks that's fine to keep up there and not designate it as misinformation or misleading information tells me all I have to know about this website, I don't know if you guys would let a painting made in 1907 by Africans displaying a Black man as an Anchient King of England still be there but whatever. My approach to Wikipedia will be never using this website again, especially seeing that treatement ive been given and also seeing that Un-authentic information and misinformation is allowed and I get in trouble for trying to correct it and not those who do it, it's rather pathetic. Wizeone2 (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion (talk · contribs) Disruptive editing: [6] [7] -LeGabrie (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-Ethiopian War

Please stop with this edit war. There isn’ any vandalism in that edits.

First: the casualties are wrong, as written in the source (please read it).
Second: to write that there was a second war between Italy and Ethiopia is not a vandalism

What’s the problem? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DavideVeloria88, You are vanadlising the page by changing the numbers to those that don't match the reference, and your decision to add a sentence about the second italo Ethiopian war when the page is about the first italo Ethiopian war clearly shows you have an agenda to save face for your country seeing as your an Italian. The page has been the way it was for months for a reason because everything was agreed upon until you have changed it to wrong information to suite your agenda. And to my astonishment you also changed the numbers for the battle of Adwa to the wrong numbers completely from their original correct position, completely disregarding the reference and that is vandalism also. Wizeone2 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at First Italo-Ethiopian War

See the advice at {{uw-3rr}}. You have previously been blocked, so you should know this is serious. There is a risk of an indefinite block. Before making any further reverts, you should try negotiating. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Its hard to negotiate with somebody disingenuously misquoting references to suite their agenda and adding info that would lead you to suspect that they have a very partisan motive when that is not the purpose of this website and that is wrong. Is there not any other way I can handle this without having to comprise correct rightly referenced information added to that page by another Wikipedia user with somebody who I suspect, seems to be some type of nationalist who is purposely misquoting references and adding irrelevant sentences as a means of saving face for his country? Wizeone2 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should make your proposal at Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War and try to persuade the people there that you are right. If disagreement persists, you can use WP:Dispute resolution. You should also stop using the word 'vandalism' to describe good-faith edits. Under WP:ASPERSIONS, misuse of language such as 'vandal' when referring to other editors can lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Is the other person not at risk of being blocked aswell? He has committed 3 reverts in 1 day to the page already now so should he not be blocked by now? Wizeone2 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It takes four reverts to violate WP:3RR. Anyone who negotiates in good faith is usually safe from admin action. Notice that another editor has already opened a discussion about casualty numbers at Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War. It's your turn now. I hope you can be specific as to how you computed the casualty numbers you are using yourself. There is some ambiguity as to how to present in the infobox the Italian casualties and the casualties of their local African allies -- should they simply be added together? If you join the discussion, say which source you are using and if you are adding things together. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption at First Italo-Ethiopian War

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Italo-Ethiopian War (again) on my talk page. Between April 8 and 12 it looks like you and User:DavideVeloria88 resumed the previous edit war on this article. I don't intend to put up with another edit war. Please work with the other party, or use one of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is extremely confusing when you change casualty figures. If the two of you can't negotiate I am willing to put the page under full protection. Then nobody could edit. That would be intended to force a proper discussion on the talk page before the page can be altered again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a diffrent source and therefore should not be conflated with the same source that was already in. You have mixed it together which is wrong".. Actually no, citing two sources isn't wrong. As you can see in the page, it's exactly the same things in the Strength: 18,000-25,000 with two different sources for the Italians, and 80–100,000 for the Ethiopians, also with two different sources. So, what I’ve done isn't wrong.

Also, what source says Italy was supported by Germany and Austria?? It is unsourced. You can't say it only because it was a member of the Triplice Alliance: it was only a defensive alliance. As Italy was an aggressor, the other members didn't support it. It is the same reason because Italy didn’t support Austria during the invasion of Serbia in WWI.

Third: why do you removed France? There are two sources. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hip hop. 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. Take your concerns to the talk page and don't edit war freshacconci (✉) 21:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wizeone2 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)== Battle of Gallabat ==[reply]

Recently there has been a dispute between us on the Battle of Gallabat article regarding the use of the term "Pyrrhic victory" i have come to your talk page to elaborate on my stance better than I can usin edit summaries. WP:RESULT (One of Wikipedia's guidelines) states that the only things that should be in the military conflict infobox are ""X victory", "Inconclusive" or "See aftermath", whilst specifically stating that terms such as "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for the infobox. It should matter that the source says it was a "Pyrrhic victory" as the WP:RESULT states that there are only three possible results that may go in the results section. DervotNum4 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theres is no dispute you are invoking your bias which is actually against the rules unlike the 'recomendation' you linked which states itself "this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles" you are vandalising the page by removing an edit that is to the letter directly from the source, do it once more and I will take it to the mods, Wizeone2 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]