User talk:Blizzio

May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=720113174 your edit] to Wahhabism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * militant groups worldwide that are associated with the Wahhabi ideology include: Al-Shabaab, Ansar Dine, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and [[Islamic State of

Why reverting?
Deleting a content that is sourced properly without giving any specific reasons is edit warring. While restoring something that is deleted without specific reason is not edit warring. I am very happy to discuss based on any reasons provided to me but am against someone who is in here just to keep on reverting and don't want to engage in discussion. Anyone can oppose all he want so long his point is supported by reliable alternative sources. Until someone engages with me in real discussion I will revert it back. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * When you say "Do no edit war, please get consensus" are you saying "you need to get permission before making edits?" because that is what i am getting. If there is any rule in wikipedia that states that editors needs to get other wikipedians permision before adding contents please let me know. As far as I know there is no need for permission to add contents and if any other person has issues with the contents added then they may list them out under talk page for discussion and in case no body want to engage in discussions, as in my case, then the edits remain. In my case I only get repeated warning saying that "need to get consensus" as in "need to have permission" but not even given one convincing reason. Please review them and I will be happy to make corrections if given any convincing reason. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I don't believe continuous reversions on a page is proper discussion. I believe it is you who is not discussing the matter with the other editor. If you do not specify your addition line by line you will not get an answer on why editors oppose your edits. Cease editing of the article and present your proposal in a clear manner. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia you will not achieve your goal if your blocked. In plain terms, don't edit the article again until you have consensus. Thank you. Blizzio (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll temporarily stop reverting since now I'm in discussion with you. Now you have said If you do not specify your addition line by line you will not get an answer, since we are under the rule of Wikipedia (weather we like it or not) could you please give me a shortcut for the rule supporting this claim of yours. In other words you are telling me that if let say I want to add a paragraph containing 15 sentences then I am not allowed to add them all at once but add each of them separately line by line and for each of them I need to give extra explanations in talk page. I've seen many large addition into many articles of wikipedia without being added line by line like this one for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&type=revision&diff=726045499&oldid=726016372 who not only added many paragraphs with many senetnces at the same time but also added a new section without adding them line by line and giving explanations for each sentences so why not we delete them without giving him a reason just beacause he has no right to get an answer from us because he didn't add them line by line? I am sure we will find many similar examples in Wikipedia and let's delete them and keep on reverting giving them the same reason you gave me. Since you did not give reasons on the content you want/support to be deleted the message sent to us is that your reasoning for insisting to revert/delete is not based on the content presented but to enforce Wikipedia's rule here then why not also keep deleting the other many additions while giving them the same reason?


 * As far as I know if any other editor has problems with a new additions he might delete it if indeed there is obvious violations, if not then and have issues with biased sources, orgininal research, weasel words etc etc he can to add tags while opening a new section under talk page explaining his reasoning without deleting the content in the article and if anyone finds the reasoning not convincing then anyone has a right to remove the tags. If Zekenyan or you have found any obvious violations then you can delete the content while still giving convincing reasons but if you both have issues with let say original research then there is tag available for you here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Original_research and the rule under this page says: Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given. Meaning let say the paragrpah you two keep deleting is original research i.e. my own story based on my own research without sourcing properly then what you can do is add the tags and open a section in talk page listing your convincing explanations. However you two are keep on deleting the content not even by taging, neither opening a section to give convincing explanations or indicate obvious violations. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the warning template. It specifically says to gain consensus if editors disagree with your addition. Nobody is opposing the edit on the Somalia page you linked to above. I am simply upholding consensus on the article page. The best solution is to participate in discussion. Citations needed tag is used by editors, who are not willing to spend time in researching the content. Blizzio (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again you have made a claim above without providing a shortcut to wikipedia rule, please provide the rule supporting your claim. I don't accept the messages left to me by you and Zekenyan since you two are not administrators and your contribution history shows that you engage more in dialogues with other users while not contributing much for articles. Remember the rule in wikipedia says that editors need to be engaged in content contributions and their account should not serve only for reverting/deleting and disrupting. If you have a reason on the content presented you could have listed them out under the talk page so that everyone can see your reasonings and comment about it but you did not do that and that is considered disrupting. The reason given for your first revert was this: Discuss your edits, while it can be clearly seen in the article's talk page that it was discussed and yet you havenot participated in the discussion until this message is written. On your second reverse the reason given is Do no edit war, please get consensus, also Zekenyan repeatedly said I need to get consensus to add a content, otherwise it will be reverted but contrary to your continuous suggestions this rule here WP:DRNC says:

 Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"
 * And when you revert it for the 3rd time the reason given was  again urging to get consensus and for a reason of edit warring. As for the continued insist to get consensus look the rule here WP:DRNC, and for making edit-war as a reason to revert is not acceptable and know that by reverting all my reverts you are also edit warring and the same warning left to my user page should have also been inserted here. One thing is certain, in all of your 3 reverts I did not get reasonings based on the content added in the article, and this clearly show that you don't have interest in engaging in a serious discussion and your interest here is just to keep deleting the added contents based on just Zekenyan's repeatedly insisted suggestions. This might lead for admins or other Wikipedians to conclude as a disruptive behavior. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)