User talk:EthiopianHabesha

A few points of concern
So let me start by saying I am neither a history buff nor Oromo historian. I am not even considered Oromo like many Ethiopians specially from Addis Ababa I come from a diverse family However I find it a little unsettling a guy with a user name EthiopiaHabesha editing Oromo_People page it’s like a guys with the name SpainNonCatalonian editing Catalonian history page. My suggestion is to find an Oromo Historian who could contribute to this page, let them have a say, than you can chime in, until than the page should go back to what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckerAnono (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To FactCheckerAnono, well how you see my username depends on your understanding of the name of Ethiopia and Habesha. If you are the generation of ethnic nationalism that advocates we are Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, somali etc etc and keep on telling us that "we are different" & "we are superior" then I can understand how you will view those two words. However, for me Ethiopia is a Greek word and Habesha is an Arabic word and both of these names are not indigenous to Horn of Africa like Shewa, Gojam, Borana, Yejju, Somali etc etc. In Greek language Ethiopia means people with sunburned faces (blacks) and Habesha was used by the Arabs to identify Horn of Africans who are unique from the rest of Africa who have a brown color. The multi-ethnic Christian empire borrowed those foreign names to create unity within it's territories with inhabitants having various racial group, religion, tribes, clans, languages and cultures.


 * Obviously the emperors need those uniting names for their own safety in a palace where it was filled by people who came from different tribes, race and religious backgrounds. For instance look into Menelik's palace and his wife has an Oromo decent from Yejju who were unhappy to loose their dyansity. Moreover his daughter was married to the Oromo Ras Mikael Ali (formerly a muslim who used to be called Mohamed Ali) and who had an army of Oromo muslims, the most feared army at the battle of Adwa by the Italian army. Menelik's war generals are also Oromos like Habtegyorgis and there are on the otherhand Amharas who were unhappy seeing Oromos being favoured in the highest position of the empire (war minister & prime minister). Therefore, to handle this competitions between those various groups the emperors prefer to use a uniting names like Ethiopia and Habesha. Besides the emperors themselves are a result of 100s of years of dynastic political marriage between influential rulling classes of Horn of Africa with different ethnic, clan, race & religious background.


 * So when I say I am Ethiopian I was saying I am black race and when I say I am Habesha I am meaning brown coloured person. And what makes you think using the name EthiopianHabesha not make me an Oromo? and for your info the equivalent correlation for Spain-Catalonia is Amhara-Oromo and my username doesn't say am Amhara. My beleif is that we are one people based on our DNA findings and our history that was full of clan wars and raids that resulted in us being intermixed contentiously for thousands of years. In the old time people intermixed without their will and this intermixing will also continue in the future while this time it will be by the will of the people. For me language & culture are artificial identities imposed on the majority over 80% subjects (conquered and brought from all parts of Horn of Africa) by the minority less than 20% ruling classes and I believe the history of all tribes of Horn of Africa is also our own history. If you have problems with the sources presented pls let's discuss about it otherwise me being whatever tribe should not be the topic of discussion since I am not the source of the statement. And my objective is to tell the true history based on qualified researchers who make their references from independent and varied sources. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To FactCheckerAnono, I want to add a few points regarding to my username and your correlation with Spain-Catalonia in a global context. Spanish/Spain, Catalan/Catalonia and Hindi/India are name of languages. In India over 66% of them (800 million) don't speak Hindi language or are not ethnic Hindi but yet their nation is called India and so far there is no separatist party in India because there is no ethnicgroup having 51% of the population (good for democracy). However Spanish, Chinese, English and Russian on the other hand represented over 80% of the nation of Spain, China, United Kingdom and Soviet Union respectively, which created not good environment for democracy unlike India so therefore there are/were separatists within these nations. Regarding to names of other countries "America" was named after an Italian cartographer named Amerigo Vespucci and Saudi Arabia was named after it's founder Muhammad bin Saud. So unlike those countries our nation was not named by tribal names like Spain, India or China which would be equivalent in Ethiopia as Oromian or Amharan. And also it was not named after personal names like America or Saudi Arabia which would be equivalent in Ethiopia, Eritrea & Kenya as Menelikian Ethiopia, Afeworkian Ethiopia and Kenyatan Ethiopia respectively assuming Ethiopia as a nation of the colored non white people. Since there is no tribe or person called Ethiopia or Habesha those are the best names when compared to the above mentioned countries with Ethiopia having the best demography that is best for democracy.EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Medri Bahri
 * added a link pointing to Abyssinia


 * Tigrayans
 * added a link pointing to Abyssinia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please delete your question in the Menelik Talkpage section "Neutrality of Menelik II article is lacking"
You stated: "To Otakrem, You inserted this " { {soapbox|date=June 2016} } showing in the article like this:Template:Soapbox and this kind of tag is not found under the list of wikipedia tags, if you have link showing how it can be inserted then you may let us know. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)"

However, you could've sent this to my User Talkpage and Not the Articles Talkpage. Please delete it there and we can discuss here. The Talkpage section is meant to discuss the Menelik Article and Not how to add Templates or how to use Wikipedia etc. Otakrem (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively" Otakrem (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As an FYI, the previous Discussions we had on the Menelik Article are in violation of these User Guidelines. So please in the future discussion Follow them as shall I.Otakrem (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, it will be deleted, together with your notice inserted below. I put that notice there because we started the discussion on Menelik page, and also thought it was related exactly to the 3 boxes put on top of the article page which I thought was most relevant section to discuss about it. Anyways, now it is no more there and since Menelik article is written by many editors for the last many years then hopefully when everyone comes back and see the notice on top of the article then we may have many opinions, questions & discussions from many editors instead of just two people complaining. But since the rule says anyone can delete the notice boxes if obvious violations cannot be indicated by the person who alleges, then may be it's better to explain more and try to convince the reader if infact there is violation. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Geez
Hi, just took a look at your Geez people article. Has it come to your mind that Amharic are assimilated Harla? hence the name Am-Hara. The Am could be referring to Amda seyon who was attacked by harla, 14th century.I saw the language category pointing Amhara near to east Gurage and this source says Harla had their base in Metahara east shewa. Kiziotherapy (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Habesha
Greetings! As Otakrem already explained to you :
 * ::*EthiopianHabesha, see Talk:Habesha_people Since there is a discussion on who is Habesha, your entry of related groups as being Habesha is contested, therefore no consensus has been reached. I agree with Soupforone for removing what you added. "Ethiosemitic languages" cover more than just Amhara and Ethiopian Tigrayans, therefore the addition of it to an article dubbed "Habesha people" is not correct from the sources provided and the Non-Habesha populations own self-definition.Otakrem (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That said, kindly stop edit warring. Please instead discuss the material on the talk page. Regards--Soupforone (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please revert all the "Abyssinian" terminology back to Habesha. Resourcer1 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bulatovich is a Source of the Millions Killed during Menelik's reign
EthiopianHabesha, After all of our discussions and you went and deleted the source which supports the claim. I will add more of Bulatovich's quotations in the Menelik Article, every single Detail that Bulatovich had provided. I will also add more details from the other Sources.Otakrem (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, I am following Wikipedia rule here and there are adminstrators who will make sure we all are under the rule of the organisation. We both went throgh the entire Bulatovichs book and you and I know clearly that he did not precisely say millions, thousands or even 100s murdered! He just said half died but did not specify how and why they died by explaining and dedicating at least one paragraph (giving a little more space on his book having 100s of pages). His use of 'Half died' earlier in his book, regarding his own personal observation in Didesa Valley, which we can take as his sampling methodology (since he did not follow disciplined research methodology) says Half died for combination of factors i.e. famine caused by cattle disease, fever and conquest and infact in one farmstead half died in fever in one year alone. Based on his eye account we cannot know how & why people died because he did not say precisely X number died for famine, Y number by murder, Z number during wars, W number for fever etc. It is for these reasons why I deleted his book as a source to support that sentence having 'millions', though Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete said it and that sentence should be attributed to them but not Bulatovich. If you think it is appropriate to use it as a source for that sentence we may ask administrators opinion. Also note that my opinion regarding the other sources being against wikipedias rule of Questionable sources and exceptional source for exceptional claims is still unchanged. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha Your unwillingness to actually Read what Bulatovich wrote and within the Context is not Good Faith Discussion. Your Opinion is your opinion. However, the sources and Bulatovich are valid Per Wikipedia guidelines and that statement is valid per Wikipedia Guidelines. I went through that entire discussion and demonstrated to you exactly how the calculations were made and that Bulatovich infact Meant what he said. Your refusal is your own Opinion. If you delete the Bulatovich source to that statement, I will be forced to report you for Vandalism. Let us not go that route, I thought you were being reasonable but after your removal of the Bulatovich sourced and cited by exact page number, you still deleted the source. Please do not do that again.Otakrem (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, cool down! as I said I am only hear for sharing knowledge and as a person who review sources carefully based on neutral sources I am still not convinced to how Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete paraphrased Bulatovich statement but if you are convinced then I am only trying to convince you and trying to inform you why I deleted it and if that does not work then Bulatovich source will stay (while still me being strongly not convinced for supporting that sentence and also while hopefully administrators would likely also being against it). There is no ambiguous reason why I am not convinced, it is simply because Bulatovich did not precisely say not even 100s were murdered leave alone millions while nothing prevented him from saying that clearly (precisely saying I saw or heard people saying 100s, 1000s, 100,000s or millions being murdered by X way and for Y reason and in Z place). Note that he went back to his country Russia where he fears no one from Ethiopia going to Russia (boarding a plane which does not exist at that time) and threatening him for saying the truth or even coming up with false claim. Even if Bultovich's eye account was published in Russia (the translator Richard Seltzer even says it way not published until he translated it in 1990s) when he was alive, a time where Menelik & his Oromo & Amhara aristocrats do not even have the mechanism or the interest of knowing what is published in New York times (worlds oldest & largest media at that time) leave alone a Russian news paper. After all these convincing reasons if you still insist it is right to support that sentence then it will stay no problem! If you don't delete it then I will not. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha Your interpretation of Bulatovich's commentary based on his First-hand account of Menelik's army and the population count of the Oromo people is incorrect. Your "arguments" are based on flawed logic therefore I am not convinced. I am convinced that Bulatovich is a Primary source and did make the claim that "more than half of the Oromo population" were "annihilated" therefore the statement made using Kumsa,Bulcha, Bulatovich is correct. Otakrem (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Menelik II. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You recently deleted a section and added an unreliable source from a nonexistent person Fekadu LemassaOtakrem (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 Follow Wikipedia Talkpage Guidelines
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Otakrem (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive editing. On Menelik II, all I did was separate it because it needs to be separated. As you have added so much other things in that section that it is clumsy and unreadable for an English-speaker since this is a Wikipedia English version. Otakrem (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Menelik II, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Your recent revert to remove a new section "Atrocities committed during Menelik's reign" because you have your personal opinion/point that the sources are "politicians" is highly disruptiveOtakrem (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, you are engaged in a straw mans argument and this kind of discussion is disruptive behavior and an obstacle for a civilized discussion to the improvement of wikipedia articles. Previously, you came up with false accusation by saying I claimed to be an administrator or I have the side of administrators while I was precisely saying let's ask administrators opinion and this proposal should not be a problem to you if you think your POV can convince them. And now you are saying I have claimed the sources are politicians, when did I say that? Please provide the diffs for that. The reason why I oppose Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete sources is simply because I did not get an answer (after reading them) why & how millions (based on their claim) were murdered. The proposal I suggested is let's ask administrators opinion & let's see if they can approve Bulcha, Kumsa & Gelete sources (based on these rules here WP:QS & WP:EXCEPTIONAL), sources who did not explain why, how & specifically on what places millions of people murdered & sources who did not provide material evidences like mass graves to come up with exceptional claim of "millions murdered". That is precisely why I recommended administrator intervention (which I am still waiting your approval for this proposal). Those are questions enlightened educated Wikipedia readers ask and sources to be used for this kind of exceptional claim need to give an answer to these basic and very important questions. And please do not quote me out of context. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha I have not been rude to you but you have been rude to me. See your recent comment [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Menelik_II&diff=736744687&oldid=736742733], that does not seem constructive discussion but rather accusatory. I will not respond to your comment in that talk until you behave like a good faith editor. I was correct to warn you for your disruptive behavior and you are displaying it in these recent comment. You can either change your behavior or just no longer discuss with me.Otakrem (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, disruptive behavior? As you know the way I discuss in talkpages is first I present sources or citations then engage in discussion by saying according to X & Y writer. If I have any concerns and issues with the sources then I raise it & inform it to Wikipedians. That is what I did in the diffs you provided above. Instead of you saying I came up with my POV because X & Y liberation front (politicians) struggle for X years (which you did say several times in our discussion in Menelik & Habesha article), you could have supported your POV with the relevant experts to the topic we are discussing about. If we are talking about history then it is not justifiable to censor most relevant experts in the topic (archaeologist/historians/anthropologist/linguist) who concluded after many years of hard work/research and instead just insist on what politicians say (for this claim I can list several diffs from our discussions). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha So far you have never even acknowledged the sources but only resorted to name-calling. You didn't like what they wrote and your Racism towards them for being African(Horn of Africa specifically). Then you didn't like their primary source Bulatovich. Then you accused me of so many preposterous things that I just ignored your insults. I won't go into the details of your disruptive behaviour because its clear to see by others. And I know you have been blocked before for your disruptive behavior as well. No need to respond any further until you correct your behavior. If you continue, I will be forced to proceed with the Process. Otakrem (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, insult? Again please stop your false accusations. Where is diffs for this claim of yours? You do not expect me to take all the sources you bring without questioning them and criticizing them, which I think we all have the right to do so. My issues with Kumsa, Bulcha & Gelete is not about their personal background but of the content they presented which I explained above in detail on my post dated 24, 25 & 29 august. The last time I was blocked for 31 hours was because of disagreement with the user Zekenyan who is now blocked indefinitely for sock puppet and infact even after the block we discussed in civilized manner and later he even agreed for the inclusion of the paragraph (the cause of our disagreement) which he opposed intially as you can see here . — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, you have written so many walls of texts that you have forgotten the insults and accusations that you throw in your responses. You've accused me and insulted me with so many things. But I hope you change your behaviour. If you don't see anything wrong with your behaviour, then I will request the appropriate mediators to help me resolve this matter with you.Otakrem (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, if you claim there are many insults how is it difficult to bring one example diff? I crtisise & question sources and if you consider that as an insult then why do we need to make discussion in the first place? We engage in discussion to convince one another by bringing sources (and if there is any issues with the sources then they can be critisised) and if no source is provided then it is considered original research, which is not allowed here, and can also be critisised. This way we try to solve the issue within ourself and if that is not possible then we invite others to discuss in the same way. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You've written so many walls of text that you can go back and read what you wrote.Otakrem (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are ridiculous and you have completely messed up some pages. Resourcer1 (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Resourcer1, can you be specific on what the problem is? We are bringing a lot of reliable sources from relevant experts in the article's talk page and analysing & discussing them to try to get consensus based on what the sources are saying. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the "Habesha people" page, the term has been changed to "Abyssinian", which is not correct. As an Ethiopian myself, I can tell you that no one addresses each other as "Abyssinians" but Habesha. I don't know why you decided to change it to Abyssinian, the term Habesha came into existence long before Abyssinia, it was there in Aksum times. Resourcer1 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Resourcer1, I did not change the articles title. When I want to add content about the term 'Habeshas' wider usage/application (on people other than Amhara & Tigrayan people based on reliable sources) other editors opposed, then after a long discussion in the articles talk page we decided the article to be renamed to 'Abyssinian' if it cannot include it's wider usage. I am an Ethiopian also and the way we use 'Habesha' for our day to day communication as well as Arab & Turk Scholars use of the term is not like it was applied in the article previously (which was based on European scholars narrow use as 'Abyssinian') which was restricted to specific tribes or people who come from specific geographic area within Ethiopia. All these issues I raised are supported by reliable sources and they are found in the articles talk page. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * EthiopianHabesha,We cannot ignore how Arabs use it though because it is essentially an Arabic term. Abyssinia derived from the Arabic name for the region Al-Habash, and what I read is that Abyssinia as a word is of Portuguese origin. Also who decided to restrict the term "Habesha" to just Amhara/Tigrinya? Everyone on that talk page failed to realise that the Tigre (Muslims) tribe of Eritrea only became Muslims in the late 19th Century when the Ottoman arrived... so to say they are not Habesha because they are "muslims" is false, they are only recent Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resourcer1 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Resourcer1, I also beleive it is originally an Arabic term which later adapted by the inhabitants of Ethiopia based on how the Arabs uses it (not on how Europeans uses it). Note that Ethiopia is also a Greek word. When the Portugese came by 16th centuary, which at that time solomonic dynasity rule extends upto Bale, Zeila & Damot (Wellega), they have noticed the term 'Habesha' being extensively used which later on other Europeans picked up the name and start speculations and start to connect Abesha/Habesha with Habshat kingdom in Yemen. Some Europeans even proposed people migrating from Habashat (white people) and settled in Ethiopia & built Axum civilization. Some ethnic nationalist (polticians) people (not relevant experts on history & archaeology) picked up these European speculation and even came up with the term 'Habeshanised' to the indigeneous people (Agaw, Beja & Afar) as if the languages & cultures we see in Ethiopia being present in South Arabia. We can say Arabisation of African people becuase the language & culture of Arab developed outside of Africa and are currently being seen in Arabia. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop Deleting the Sourced entry in Abyssinian people Article
EthiopianHabesha, stop deleting what I entered. It is sourced and your accusation of "politicans" is unwarranted and I will report you for disruptive editing.Otakrem (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, What you have added is challenged by 2 editors and for that reason the citation used to come up with that statement should be provided for discussion in the articles talk page and if we can not reach consensus then we will request others opinion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This entire article is challenged. Therefore it is permitted to add the counter to this claim of Abyssinian-ethnicity upon the two ethnic groups (Tigrinya and Tigre). It is properly sourced and any further deletion of it is disruptive editting.Otakrem (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, the entire article is challenged by you only so far within the existence of the article for the past 11 years, out of 73 registered wikipedia editors who currently watches this article, out of 413 registered users who edited it so far. Not forgeting the 1000s of wikipedia readers who didnot complain to Wikipedia organisation. Therfore, your excuse for adding that content is based on 1 editor who challenged it by bringing politicians as a source (evidence: your use of liberation fronts as a source to support your POV in various talkpages) but not even 2 editors challenging it. Anyways that is just for clarification on the issue. That being said I want to let you know for which Wikipedia rules I am reverting your last edit WP:ADVOCACY of which I have multiple diffs to support this claim, also WP:CHALLENGE, WP:Verifiability, WP:LIKELY, WP:ORIGINAL, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, Talk page guidelines and WP:TALK - EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your Non-Neutral Point of View (the Pro-Amhara Biased Version) is categorically rejected. The Liberation Fronts Physically Destroyed your Amhara-Bias and nothing in Wikipedia should be used to Promote your Egotistical Abyssinian(Amhara) Fundamentalism agenda either. It will be Duly contested and even if you try to use Wikipedia guidelines to slickly Delete and Edit content that Goes against your Amhara-biased Agenda. Stop spreading your Abyssinian(Amhara) Fundamentalism AGENDA! Eritrea is an Independent Country with the Tigrinyas and Tigre people INDEPENDENT of Amhara-agenda. Follow the Wikipedia guidelines you are using to Wikilawyer me. Stop Wikilawyering me and other editors. We have EVERY RIGHT TO EDIT in WIKIPEDIA And You Are NOT AN ADIMINISTRATOR TO TELL ME HOW AND WHEN TO EDIT AN ARTICLE! You are definitely a liar here.Otakrem (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, stop your insults and how many times do I have to tell you I am not Amhara or pro what ever agenda you are claiming. I am not here for any agendas but if there is any perception by you then I could say I am against Ku Klux Klan system, where a person with blood of let say Surma/Gambela/Harari/Hamar/Afar/Amhara tribe blood is not accepted into any organisation in the country be it TPLF or OLF. A surma person born and raised in an Oromo dominated teritories should be allowed to equally participate in the leadership of OLF while still identifying himself as a Surma person and even be the president of Oromos as Amharas allowed the Gurage to be their president. Gambela, Hamar, Gurage or even Amhara born in Tigray or Oromia should be equally given leadership positions in OLF or TPLF. If opposing KKK system and support equal oportunity for all in every organisations makes me pro-Amhara then I beleive the person who have problems is who justifies his KKK system by corrupting history (what ever excuse you may come up with there is no justification for KKK system in 2016). Anyways, that is if there is any perception by you of me having agenda but as I repeatedly said I am not even here in Wikipedia to be anti KKK system but only for sharing knowledge, that is all. So far I do not have any agendas to advocate for here in Wikipedia so stop your continued false accusations and personal attacks.— EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Abyssinian system was a Feudal Gabbar system where Slavery existed. Amhara were at the top of the ethnic hierarchy. This is well documented and I can tell that you are an Apologist for that system. Guess what, it doesn't take a genius to conclude that you are Amhara or Abyssinian(Habesha). You refer to Tigrayans, Tigrinyas, and Tigre..all as "Tigre" which is the Amharic pronounciation. Do you speak another language beside Amharic?Otakrem (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, let me ask you, who are the people on top of that feudal Gabbar system where a slavery existed which you claimed? 100s of rulling classes with oromo blood in full & half (some even Mikael Ali was born as an Oromo muslim called Mohamed Ali Aba Bula yet his son Lij Iyasu was approved to be ruler of all people in Ethiopia including Amharas and Tigres) were indeed on top of that system as well. Do you want me to list them all here becuase I might run out out of space? Indeed these Oromo rulling classes were also on top of the Amhara & Tigre rulling classes as well which shows you that no one needs to be born as an Oromo to be on top of the system while it is not in anyways possible for one born with Surma blood, Gurage blood & Amhara blood to be a member of OLF and TPLF system leave alone to be on top of their system. Please correct me if I am wrong. Once again I am not even here in wikipedia to be anti KKK system but I am only here because I am very much concerned with rampant corrupting history and paraphrasing out of context by some other people for whatever agendas they may have either to be pro or anti KKK system, or to show ethnic superiority, or for politics, or for divided and conquer, or for ethnic nationalism, or for hate which ever they may have agendas I am not in anyways aligned with any of these groups of people. I'm just here to carefully review sources and try as much as possible to balance stories based on what Wikipedia organisation stands for. Again if you continue, which so far you are unwilling to do so after repeated notice, to use Amhara within every one of your posts then I am going to have to report you becuase the talk pages are for dicussing facts, contents and issues based on what the sources are saying, and it is not a place for you to engage in an ethnic battle. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Were they Abyssinians? What is an Abyssinian? If they are Oromo, how can they be Abyssinian if by your definition, a "Abyssinian = Semitic speaker", Oromos are "Cushitic speakers"? How is it possible for a Cushite to be a Semitic Abyssinian? There are two choices here: 1. All the Abyssinian top leaders were Amharas  2. Abyssinian is not a specific term for Semitic Speakers and a Loose term used and abused by the power hungry namely (any ethnicity that seeks power).  Which is it?Otakrem (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, for that you are going to have to ask past wikipedia editor as to why they made Abyssinian = semitic and again you are going to have to ask the other editors like Soupforone who disagreed with me with the inclusion of the wider Habesha definition (that included mixed, Bantu & Nilotic all black people). While the article has been for 11 years, I joined in 2015 and obviously I will not go any where in the future and please try to solve issues by consensus. As I repeatedly said I am only here for sharing knowledge and as an educated person if any one convinces me with neutral sources (sources that have no agendas) then there is no reason why I don't accept but if anyone leaves this option and goes the hard way then I will go along with that based on the method that editor uses to solve issues. I droped my continued insist of the Habesha wider application used on black people in general after a civilized discussion with Soupforone whom convinced me the wider application is against the narrow definition (semitic people-Abyssinian people whom possibly migrated from south Arabia) and then I accepted his convincing points and dropped my insist of inclusion of the wider application. So if you are against Abyssinian=semitic then it should not have been me which you you should have complained to but other editors. Now if you want to add a section that criticises the wider application with out consensus then you should know that what you have added is what everyone knows (already the society is brainwashed by that but still continues to use the term with full understanding of what ethnic-nationalist say). However, what I will be adding is about Habeshas wider application (that is of applied on black people in general mixed, Bantu & Nilotic) which is not widely known while backed with multiple high quality sources and ignored by ethnic nationalist, whom their ideology in Africa will spread into other African countries and we will obviously end up with the continent with 2,000 ethnic/language republics with European model (after that with over 4,000 clan republics by Yugoslavia model). The creation of these numerous republics will then be justified because Spanish speakers have their own republic, Portuguese do so and why we should not have Zulu, Sweto, Masay, Kikuyu speaking independent republics or why not the Isaaq (Somaliland) republic & Hawiye independent republics because one language speakers such as Bosinian, Serbian & Croatian  have their own republics? I beleive why all AU countries accepted colonial borders is for the interest of the 54 African republics (for peaceful prosperous African people) based on the realty found in Africa and based on the saying "we all are boarding the same ship". — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

STOP Vandalising the Abyssinian Article by Deleting the Properly Sourced data that I put in. You do NOT OWN the Article, you keep deleting and I will keep putting it back. Otakrem (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, you also do not own wikipedia! When I added content other editors opposed & discussed with them to solve the issue and even declinded my addition respecting their opinion. Therofore, it is not me here who is vandalsising (who is not willing to engage in discussion when a content added is being challenged by other editors). Wikipedia does not belong to you, neither to me so if you beleive your point can be approved by administrators then why fear other editors opinion? I say administrators because they are the final deciders after we go though all the process of solving issues similar to how courts work. Please know that whatever method you want to use (other than consensus) is also an option widely available to me, i mean which ever way you choose other than going all the way up until administrators intervention. I will take their final decision but not your decision unless you engage in discussion and try to convince one another by using neutral sources or any sources whom their writings weighted duely and treat/include every opposing sides equally. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What I added meeets Wikipedia guidelines. The sources are verifiable and authorative as well. And your version of the Article is Biased Pro-Amhara/Tigrayans therefore the Opposing View should also be documented. If you keep deleting what I added, then you are just Deleting because you Disagree with the Opposing View. Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

About Abyssinian people Article
Otakrem,as said both of us do not own wikpedia and we need to involve other editors as to weather keep the sections titled criticism and wider Habesha idenity or delete them both because they are irrelevant. So far the consensus among wikipedia editors regarding the article is based on Ethno-linguistic factors (language classification) in which political factor is not among them and it was created & maintained similarly to Iranian peoples ethno-linguistic group which includes various ethnic-groups who speak Iranian languages while most of them leaving outside Republic of Iran. Of the 235 million Iranian Ethno-linguistic Peoples only 79 million of them leave in Iran Republic and the rest leave in Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Georgia, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan, Russia and China. Now before requesting RfC for other editors to decide on removing or keeping both sections I have issues on what you have added under criticism section and based on WP:CHALLENGE & WP:ORIGINAL of wikipedia rules I have the right to question them. Could you let me know the citation/quotation as it is, without you modifying it, you used to write the very first sentence under criticism section, it's just I went through all the sources and I could not find a citation that supports it. From that we will continue to the other phrases which I have issues with. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Criticism of the Identity is a Valid Section. All sources point to a limitation of which ethnic groups were/are Abyssinians. Modern-day Eritrean Tigrinyas and Tigres do not consider themselves Abyssinian(an Old name for the Amhara-Tigrayan dominated Ethiopia). Your wider description of the term Habesha is a separate article. You are using the wider description to jam pack the Abyssinian article which was specific to Amhara and Tigrayan people and NOt the other Ethnic groups in Eritrea or even Ethiopia.Otakrem (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you added the Expansionist section to include non-Semitic speaking people, You should not remove the mention of Oromos and cushitics Rejecting Abyssinian Identity. Are you trying reach NPOV in this article or only promote your Abyssinian Expasionist(cultural imperialist) POV ie "everyone is Abyssinian because Amhara imperialists said so"? If so, then I will keep deleting anything and everything until Abysinnian article only says "Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans" are the only Abyssinians.Otakrem (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakrem, Wikipedia doesn't belong to you only neither to me as there are 100s of editors who developed it for 11 years. I will ask for page protection & administrators will decide on what the article should be about and should not be about. Until then the article will not be based on my decision nor your decision (your claim of poltitics being the primary factor to group people under ehno-linguistic grouping) but only based on the user Soupforone recommendation for the article to be just about an ethno-linguistic people called 'Abyssinian' who speak Ethio-semitic languages and he even brought a source that names the Semitic languages as Abyssinian languages. Therfore, I will delete both Criticism section (based on your insist politics is a factor for ethno-linguistic grouping & racial grouping) and Habesha mixed-black people identity section (which I added to balance the content you added which makes no distinction between Abyssinian Ethno-linguistic & wider Habesha identity used by Ethiopians & Eritreans only to refer mixed race i.e. people who look like them). Again wikipedia does not belong to 2 editors and we need to respect other editors opinion and for this reason do not add both sections until other editors and finally adminitrators decided on what the article should be or should not be, while that process continues the page should stay based on the user Soupforone recommendation. Based on these reasons forwarded to you I will revert and if you ignore this invitation to solve issues by consensus through other editors intervention other than the two of us and continue your edits as you said above "I will keep deleting anything and everything until Abysinnian article only says "Amhara and Amharaized Tigrayans" are the only Abyssinians." will be regarded us disrupting, vandalizing and be against what we Wikipedia stands for (develop & improve articles by consensus) — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Abysinian page reply
Language is not the criteria for grouping people but citations. Its based off the wikipedia editors personal work and not references. Ge'ez is not even related to Amharic. The Tigre people for example do not want to be called Abyssinian, this can bring a potential lawsuit by members of that community against wikipedia for misrepresentation. Citations are clear. Abyssinians claim Jewish origin as the Amhara people page says. the Argobba claim descent from Arabs. Nowhere can you find a citation that claims prehistorically they were one. Please show the source of the origin of citation that exactly states what is posted on the wikipage. Duqsene (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Abyssinian or Habesha are a people who are ancestral to the rulers of ancient habesha not a ethnolinguistic block. The linguistic experts have labelled the Ethio-semitic languages, the Abyssinian languages but have not said Abyssinians are all those people. If it had been based on linguistics, Amharic could not be included in the Habesha category because its not related to Ge'ez. Where is the source for all statements made? This article might help you understand Habesha/Ethiopian. Duqsene (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Amharic is categorized under Ethiopian semitic because its a semitic language in Ethiopia not because its related to Ge'ez. You are dismissing the ability to provide citations for every statement written in the article. I looked at the contributions clearly and they do not say what is posted on the article. Ge'ez is not related to Amharic and all linguistics have confirmed this. It is not about ethnology-linguistics, it is an article about a people that had lived in an ancient region. Are you the editor that included these baseless statements on the article? What is an RFC? I would like to hear from other editors on this subject. Include the Oromo, Somali and all the people of ethiopia if you want to be neutral and not divisive. Duqsene (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I will be awaiting your book title and page reference for the passages. Duqsene (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Duqsene, I already gave you a source showing that Ge'ez and Amharic being related and another source by linguists dating the time at which Amharic & Argoba languages separated, showing that they used to be one languages. Open a section in the article's talkpage and make your issues clear and wait for consensus before you revert because you cannot just delete sourced contents that have been discussed extensively and added by consensus. See WP:BRD on how Wikipedia articles are edited. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A graph is not a source, link an article or book. Duqsene (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Duqsene, So are you saying those language graphs, showing how languages are related, is not a source? There are already many books listed in the article, see them. What you are doing is excluding researchs that considers linguists research, geneticists conclusion, archaeologists research and historical documents, and then replace them by researches that was supported by myths and legends. Why? We are not dealing with tribes but an ethno-linguistic group of people similar to Iranian peoples & Bantu peoples who included 100s of ethnic-groups (and 1,000s more tribes and many more clans under the tribes) under them with each tribes having several myths & legends about their origin. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Without references, all of these arguments do not matter. Duqsene (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop editwarring, and respond to my request for evidence with a source. Duqsene (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Duqsene, have you gone through the article's talk page? All the references you are asking about (if what I already gave you is not enough) have been discussed there extensively. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Argobba Woman.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Argobba Woman.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Abyssinian people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  22:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Censorship and Amharic language addition
It looks like you want the Amharic language to be added into every page while dismissing the existence of Amhara people because of nationalist ties. Therefore it gives me no choice but to report you for conflict of interest. Duqsene (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Duqsene (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Duqsene (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, I filed a request for Arbitration regarding the Amhara people page, i also mentioned your proposal GabiloveAdol (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

New AN/I case where you are mentioned
Please see this. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Amhara people arbitration case request declined
The Arbitration Committee has declined the Amhara people arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi. Following consensus at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, you are indefinitely topic-banned from making any edits relating to the Horn of Africa region, including any countries in that region or their ethnic or cultural groups. This means you are free to continue editing Wikipedia in any other area, but may not make changes to articles directly or partly related to the area covered by the topic ban. The terms of the ban re also spelled out here.

I appreciate this is probably unwelcome news, but it reflects a general concern about the quality and neutrality of your edits over a fair length of time. Hopefully you can find a different area of interest on Wikipedia, and if so, all the best with your editing there. If you have any questions re the topic ban, pleas elect me know on my talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!