User talk:EHabeshaE

June 2020
Hello, I'm Austronesier. An edit that you recently made to Talk:People of Ethiopia seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Austronesier (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Same Action, Same Results
Hi. I think you're the user who keeps on trying to edit Habesha peoples to describe a restrictive definition of "Habesha" as antiquated or archaic or what have you, & to favour a broader understanding of "Habesha" as applying to all Ethiopian & Eritrean peoples. You appear to think that your edits are being undone because of censorship in favour of the restrictive definition. I don't think this is what's happening. I wish that you would read my comments on Talk:Habesha peoples: The real problem is the quality of the citations. I've laid out a way to try to work together to include both definitions. I wish that you would slow down, take a little time with the actual sources, & try to use them in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies. If you keep on doing the thing you've been doing, I think the result will be that administrators will continue to revert your edits & your new accounts will keep getting banned. Pathawi (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
, here's another likely Hoaeter incarnation, identical with WhatsUpAfrica. Very sad. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Habesha Community and Wikipedia Racism
I wasn’t talking about you, I see what you have done, you’ve tried to give everyone a fair chance, the problem is that I have been hearing a lot of Habeshas at school and on Instagram posts, and Medium articles complaining about an admin named User:Gyrofrog and User:Doug Weller misconstruing all of their edits making it look like Habesha is synonymous with Ethiopia or Eritrean, that is a false idea it doesn’t replace the terms Ethiopian and Eritrean but a group that include both and their diasporas. Even though I and many other Habesha Wikipedians have edited Habeaha-related pages, User:Gyrofrog and User:Doug Weller keeps deleting all of our edits. If you weren’t there User:Gyrofrog and User:Doug Weller would have and has deleted everything, including talk page information, including legitimate sources I have added. If I had added some of the sources that you put down, User:Gyrofrog and User:Doug Weller would have deleted them without reading it. The only reason they kept it is because they can’t trample over you like they can do to new editors or non-admin editors like −	the rest of us. Using my free time I have read through countless talk pages and have witnessed how User:Gyrofrog, User:Doug Weller, and their admin goons have trampled over Habesha editors when they go against their views, here are some examples: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946%23Disruptive_Editor_on_Ethiopia_related_pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Disruptive_Editor_on_Ethiopia_related_pages), Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_82%23Long-term_issues_at_Habesha_peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Long-term_issues_at_Habesha_peoples),they’ve also been deleting old talk page information from my teenage years before joining Wikipedia, they did this during the Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/May incident when y’all pages were misplaced, and they have committed many more abuses of Arbitartion Committee and Administration Powers against users. EHabeshaE (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And here I'd taken the article off my watchlist and was planning to ignore it. But as you are clearly intent on making new articles and abusing Wikipedia, it's back on my watchlist. Doug Weller  talk 17:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the links. For the benefit of anyone reading this, one of them says "Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016" - I did try, but to no avail. Doug Weller  talk 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.


 * It seems that you're really missing the point of what other editors have been telling you. You're not going to be able to make the changes you'd like to see in the immediate future because you're ignoring Wikipedia policies. I strongly recommend that you read WP:SOCK so that you understand what's triggering your recurring bans. Then check out H:B to understand the blocking process & the appeal process. I do not think you should try to appeal your block now: You have been blocked because you are using Wikipedia inappropriately. You really need to understand site policies better before you try to return.
 * Please read this seriously: Other editors have been right to revert your edits for three reasons:
 * You are repeatedly using sock puppets. (Again, please read WP:SOCK.)
 * The claims you want to make are not from a neutral point of view. The material you want to add is legitimate, but it is clearly not the only widespread contemporary perspective.
 * Your source citations have not been of suitable quality. It is clear now that there is good scholarly material to support the definition of "Habesha"—as one example—that you want to see added. However, you are using sources that do not support your claims. It does not look like you are actually reading these sources.
 * I am going to continue with the program of edits for Habesha peoples that I proposed on the talk page. I hope that you will not create more sock puppets, but will instead take some time to read policies, observe other's editing processes, & observe how disputes are resolved, & will then after some time appeal for clemency (again: check out H:B) with an existing account. Pathawi (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * is absolutely correct, but I will add that, by this time, the sockpuppetry is not even the worst of the policy violations. Any unblock request must also address the serious WP:BLP and WP:NPA violations by sockpuppet accounts User:Eritrea123123 and User:WikiWatchdog2, and (now that I've looked) also at least one WP:OWH violation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. And since I'm (again) being publicly impugned this way (including, evidently, outside Wikipedia), let me publicly say for the, , , , , , and now (at least) seventh time: I have no problem at all with the article discussing the fluidity of the Habesha identity. My problem is with improper, malformed and/or fabricated citations. I am also compelled to point out the irony of this user complaining about the problems with a talk page move that  made. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those off-wiki sites are pretty hilarious. I see I'm accused of "alternate history", but they are clearly in an alternate universe. Doug Weller  talk 18:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)