User talk:Loves Woolf1882

Thank you!
Hi Truth gate keeper!

Thanks for all of the work you are doing improving articles related to Ethiopia! Regards, Tdslk (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Over-linking
One link is enough, overlinking is not just unnecessary, it's obtrusive and makes the text harder to read. Please read WP:OVERLINK. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Aksum town
It's been a town for centuries, usually an important market town. And of course a religious centre. Although it's growing, the city population list you are using is one of cities and towns, so can't be used to call it a town. It might reach city status again in the future in part due to tourism boosting its economy. It certainly hasn't been continuously inhabited as a city. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Truth gate keeper (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Truth gate keeper Hi Doug Weller, thank you for your comment. However, Axum is currently a city. Even when you open the city population link I used (http://www.citypopulation.de/Ethiopia.html), it says "Axum: Ethiopian city – Elevation: 2,131 m". Even though the table is both for cities and town, when you click on the list it tells you whether it is a city or a town. And whey you click Axum it says it is a "city".

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dedebit (town) has been accepted
 Dedebit (town), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Dedebit_(town) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Hi all ( Galobtter talk to me I dream of horses ), Thank you for approving the article on Dedebi! I have & I am improving it still, so how can I request a new assessment (to get a rating better than Stub-Class), when I'm done? Or is it automatic? Best regards, Truth gate keeper (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Truth gate keeper
 * Assessments are done by individual editors. If the article is improved enough, you can update the assessment (which can be done by editing the talk page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't change citations to add Amazon links
Please follow Help:Referencing for beginners, it's really useful. Don't forget page numbers for books. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller , I would never change citation to Amazon, I have no interest to do so. I always search if the book is freely available online first, if I couldn't find it online for free, then I search it anywhere online where they have it (sometimes it is Amazon, but half of the time it is somewhere else). Please point out for me, where I have changed a reference from something else that is working to Amazon?

Best regards, Truth gatekeeperTruth gatekeeper (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I misread your edit and have reverted myself. Sorry. Doug Weller  talk 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Begemder into Sanja (woreda). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Renamed
per request-- Truth gatekeeper renamed to Loves Woolf1882,

Welcome back. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much everyone. Been so long; now I think I know how someone feels when they get out of prison. An extra thank you to I owe it to you for getting my unblock appeal go through all the steps. I will do my very best not to let you all down. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. I feel great joy at being able to do this. Best. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I echo Deepfriedokra ~ welcome back; if you need any help or advice at any point as you start afresh, please feel free to ask; happy days, LindsayHello 12:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Enjoy the new name and let me know if you need anything — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Great to see you now continue expanding our great Encyclopaedia and thank you for being so patient ! BushelCandle (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Super thank you to ; How can I forget, if it wasn't for you I wouldn't have been so patient at all, for this long. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Want to revert the "Transparency" section to editor BushelCandle version
Hi, I wanted the revert only the "Transparency" section of Abiy Ahmed's page to the version you once reviewed, edited & restored ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abiy_Ahmed&diff=908400051&oldid=907391033 ). This version of the "Transparency" section seems to have only more useful & referenced information, than the current. But I didn't want to be accused of doing a BLP or PoV violation, even though I don't see credibly supported such flags accusing it of violation. So I thought I ask for your opinion again:- Did you just give up on reverting it back again, or was there a violation made by it? Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can understand you want to tread carefully.
 * How about instead of reverting, you make an edit? That way you can make sure the material is both up-to-date and relevant? (I did not notice any violations at the time - but then I'm hardly infallible...)
 * It is so sad to see what is happening in Ethiopia. I have very happy memories of my visit to Axum, the surrounding area and it's lovely and welcoming people... BushelCandle (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, and thank you. BTW, what I meant by revert is an edit to your version first. Then I will afterwards update it with the latest versions, (watching out for BLP).
 * These are some of the article I want to later add:-
 * https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/04/ethiopia-release-detained-journalists-and-opposition-politicians-immediately/
 * https://cpj.org/2020/11/ethiopian-authorities-arrest-addis-standard-editor-medihane-ekubamichael/
 * https://cpj.org/2020/04/ethiopian-journalist-yayesew-shimelis-detained-fol/
 * https://cpj.org/2019/07/ethiopia-coup-internet-censored-blocked-jailed-journalists/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/08/nobel-peace-prize-winner-abiy-ahmed-embroiled-in-media-row
 * http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/10/394224/World/Africa/Ethiopia-suspends-Reuters-incountry-correspondents.aspx  Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page edits
I have at Talk:Abiy Ahmed, but please try to remember to WP:SIGN talk page comments yourself, and to use talk-reflist if you want to use referencing in the talk page. Uninvolved human editors trying to understand the flow of conversation will have difficulty if they do not know who wrote what and when. Archiving robots will also have difficulty in choosing which sections of the page to archive when the talk page gets too long: the robots use the dates on the signatures to decide which topics of discussion are the oldest, stale (no longer discussed) topics and most useful to shift to a page of archived discussion. Boud (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Respecting the time of other editors
In of the Mai Kadra massacre talk page, we can see the list of 11 references that you claimed supported a point, and my detailed checking of all the text references. Leaving aside the 4 video/audio references which are difficult to check, 1 of your 11 references is a repeat of the existing reference used, 5 of them say nothing to support your claim (the occurrence of the massacre itself does not need more sources), and 1 gives weak support to your claim, attributing responsibility to "the army" (which could be any formal or informal army). To put it bluntly, this wasted a lot of my time.

Please respect editors' time, including mine, by preparing such claims more carefully next time. One solid reference that genuinely supports a claim is better than a long list of references of which at least half do not support the claim. At the moment, I think your editing behaviour falls into the category Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms, since I do think that some of your points provide sourced information that is complementary to that provided by other editors. I don't know how much patience other editors will have. Boud (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Replay to "Respecting the time of other editors"
, you seem to have misunderstood my points for the listed article. My first and main line was “Hello everyone, this page has many WP:NPOV issue, against Tigrayans and Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF).” So if they say the “the army” then I have made my point with the references. “The army”, the Amhara paramilitary, the Fano Amhara militias, president Essays Afewerki Eritrean’s forces are all on one side (allied with Abiy Ahmed), against people of Tigray and TPLF. However, my references many times also explicitly say Fano and Amhara militias. And even if “the army” is doing it, the ideology comes from the Amhara imperialists. That is why I spontaneously said the Fano Amhara militias, but they are all on the same side. And my WP:NPOV point is NOT that which exactly (from the federal army, the Amhara paramilitary, the Fano Amhara militias, president Essays Afewerki Eritrean’s forces) are committing the killings & massacres. My WP:NPOV point is that it is being committed by one (or all) of these Abiy Ahmed allied forces, but the other side (Tigrayans and TPLF) are being blamed.


 * I added this as bold since it is very important to my WP:NPOV claim, thought I listed it second before. It does not need to be included as bold in the article, but it has to be included. I write again and sorry to use bold, but I sometimes use it to pin-point my main points:- Furthermore, media outlasts like Associated Press (AP) have reported that Amnesty International (Amnesty) has changed its position; that is, even Amnesty is now saying that both Tigrayan ethnic and Amhara ethnic were possibly targeted. This is the exact quote from the below more recent AP article link:- 
 * https://apnews.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-massacres-d16a089f8dcb0511172b5662b9244f78

'''Here I list what I meant by these reference support my WP:NPOV against Tigrayans and TPLF claim. .'''
 * 1 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/02/tigray-war-refugees-ethiopia-sudan
 * This says


 * 2 https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/escape-massacre-ethiopians-recall-tigray-092740037.html
 * This says


 * 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/world/africa/ethiopia-tigray-sudan.html
 * This says


 * 4 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/refugees-from-ethiopia-mass-in-sudan-border-from-conflict-in-tigray-96440901567
 * This is even a very spacial video, it shows a Tigrayan ethnic people who are surviving witnesses & currently refugees in Sudan, with knife wounds expressing the horrors they experienced. please make it archived or whatever the process is to be able to reference it. You know the process better.


 * 5 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ethiopia-conflict-sudan-bombings-idUKKBN27T1OL
 * This says


 * 6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x2z2d5prcjz
 * A BBC-News audio interview with a medical doctor who fled to Sudan from western Tigray due to the civil war. He describes the massacres & atrocities being committed by Abiy Ahmed allied forces (the FANO Amhara ethnic militias). Again, please have it archived.


 * 7 https://us.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/12/07/ethiopia-tigray-tensions-refugees-sudan-eritrea-horn-of-africa-elbagir-pkg-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn::::
 * This CNN video, shows the stories of several Tigrayan refugees in Sudan, how they were being massacred by Abiy Ahmed allied forces (including being beaten by president Isaias Afwerki's forces)


 * 8 https://www.smh.com.au/world/africa/ethiopia-may-be-on-the-edge-of-genocide-20201122-p56gum.html
 * This says


 * 9 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28A1M7
 * This says


 * 10 The Telegraph’s official YouTube channel report about Mai Kadra massacre witnesses:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjCfsQWqIo4
 * Please someone who knows how to do this, have this video archived. It a reporting by an independent international journalist telling that the ethnic Amhara militias and government forces massacre Tigrayans with machete. you are a human-being, who can open and see this only 2 minutes video, don't you think it supports my claim that mainly ethnic Amhara militias are responsible for the massacres in Mai-Kadra and other places in Tigray?


 * 11 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/14/fleeing-war-ethiopians-recount-horror-of-tigray-violence
 * This says By the way, Gidey Asafa is a typical Tigrayan name. And in the video on the same article it says 


 * 12 This reference I didn’t even list before:- https://www.africanews.com/2020/11/25/amnesty-international-releases-findings-on-mai-kadra-massacre/
 * This says At one part this article says the Amnesty International representative (researcher) sent to Mai-kadra was Fisseha Tekle. Perhaps we should create a Wikipedia page for him, to give the readers a complete picture, as he may have personal bias (due to his Amhara ethnicity). Even though not said in this article, the  Amnesty International representative that was sent to Mai-kadra is an Amhara ethnic himself. Furthermore, the  preliminary investigation and report only includes interview with the people that where in Mai-Kandra when it was under the Fano & the Amhara paramilitary's control (or with the people who fled to Amhara region), so they are most likely all Amhara. But most of the real victims (the Tigrayans) appear to be dead or have fled to Sudan from the Amhara paramilitary, from the federal army and from the Amhara Fano militias. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There was no need to copy/paste all of that, since it doesn't respond to the problem of listing references that clearly do not support the point about the particular article - a massacre on one night in one town, Mai Kadra.


 * Here it is relevant to continue (briefly!) on your talk page, I think, because this is getting into an issue of WP:SYNTH, and is unrelated to the Mai Kadra massacre article. You wrote and . This is called a Manichaean or "black and white" or "good vs bad" sociological model, and is highly unrealistic in most real-life societies, including societies in conflicts. There are many different social groups and layers with many different interests, goals, political and military/police powers. As Wikipedians, we have to accept the judgment of the authors of sources to what degree a sociological group is responsible for an action, and to what extent it is meaningful to talk about that group as a single thing. Adding our own individual knowledge/beliefs/speculation, such as your Manichean hypothesis, would be WP:SYNTH. We cannot replace an NPOV-ed article on a particular event in a particular place by a Manichean view of an overall conflict over many weeks in a large geographical region. Boud (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It turned out that reference 2 with was a valid rather than "weak" reference, as I did the work to discover, and you did not show. This gives the summary as: 4 video/audio references which are difficult to check, 1 of your 11 references is a repeat of the existing reference used, 5 of them say nothing to support your claim (the occurrence of the massacre itself does not need more sources), and 1 gives support to your claim [and you added a 12th reference later on]. I'm putting this summary here, because we don't want some Wikipedians to be discouraged from editing by other Wikipedians who add massive amounts of text that turns out to be mostly irrelevant to a discussion. I have a lot of patience, but not infinite patience, and I'm just one Wikipedian among many. I recommend that you learn from this: our discussions are on the public record; others will judge your (and my) editing behaviour independently of you and me. Boud (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear, I'll list down the WP:NPOV tag justification points; (this is a response to your message here and to Talk:Mai Kadra massacre).
 * You said out of all my references (which are actually 14 when counting the newer one from Vice (magazine)), only 1 gives support to my WP:NPOV point.
 * This is not correct. They all talk about massacres/civilian-killings committed in Tigray during this Tigray conflict, and accuse the Fono Amhara militias and/or ENDF and/or Eritrean troops, on their article part coverage of the testimonies of the refugees in Sudan. Some say in general Tigray, and some cases talk about Humera (a town only few kilo-meters from Mai-Kadra), but 6 of the article explicitly talk about the Mai-Kadra massacre (these are:- #2 from Agence France-Presse, #5 from Reuters, #11 from Al Jazeera, #12 from Africanews, #13 Vice, and the one from Associated Press). These 6 is even without counting the videos. From these 6 articles, only one of them (from Reuters) is a repetition. However, the content of the rest of the 5 articles is not equally included in the Mai-kadra massacre Wikipedia page. Some are now only added to the LEAD, but not to the body of the page. The page gives more focus to sources that talk the opposite of the Tigrayan refugees' testimony. I think the stories from these 5 articles should also be given equal coverage in the body.
 * You said you did the "work to discover, and I did not show". However, I added the exact quotation from each article. But then you again turn and say, I'm making it too long. Some of the things you accuse me of contradict each-other. However, thank you for your work on the article, but it was not enough to fix the NPOV issue.


 * You said, User:KZebegna (the person you're agreeing with) claims there is no NPOV issue. But User:KZebegna does not agree with any of the 14 articles. User:KZebegna recently said all my references from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian,  Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News, Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy, are "inimical journalists" and "Yellow journalism". So he does not agree with the addition of any content from the 14 articles because they are from outlets which he calls "foreign propaganda outlets". It is no surprise he does not see the NPOV issue; so I don't think he can be a judge to this issue.


 * I don't think it should affect my NPOV report, if User:KZebegna or others have reported there was NPOV issue on the article on the opposite side. What should matter most is whether we can bring reliable source (Verifiability) to support our NPOV report.


 * The Mai Kadra massacre section only talks about the sources that talk the opposite of Tigrayans, Tigray's regional government (TPLF). If it continues like this without a balanced neutral side, then it should at least be under the "Claim: Samri perpetrators", since it only reference to references that claim that Samri or TPLF was responsible.


 * The article has a subsection called "Federal government point of view" (Mai Kadra massacre) and gives the position (or propaganda) of one side (the Ethiopian federal goverment). However, it does not have a subsection called "Tigray's regional government point of view" also giving the point of view of the other side, and making the article neutral. This should be done before removing the NPOV tag.


 * I suggest you read Videos as references (WP:CITEVIDEO), it says "It's okay to cite movies, TV programs and videos as references, as long as they meet the reliable source criteria for other sources.... Citing the point in a video source where the sourced content appears greatly improves verifiability.".  So it is also allowed to use video references on Wikipedia. By the way, all my video references are from/on reliable media outlets' websites. To be specific, they are from and on NBC News, CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera. Only one of my videos is from YouTube, but it is from the official YouTube channel of The Daily Telegraph; and the above WP:CITEVIDEO policy states that "official YouTube channels created by agencies and organizations that themselves are generally considered reliable, such as that of the Associated Press".


 * However, I have double thought about cutting the list down, and from these videos, I want to include only two of them (the one from NBC News and Al Jazeera). I especially want to include the video reference on NBC News, since it shows the story of a Mai-kandra massacre attempt survivor with knife wounds. How can any other reference be more related to the page than this particular video reference? This same person (named Abrahaley Minasbo a 22-year-old a trained dancer and Tigrayan survivor from Mai-Kadra) is also featured on the front page cover of the latest 2nd Associated Press article about Mai-Kadra massacre and so on ( https://apnews.com/article/eritrea-sudan-middle-east-ethiopia-only-on-ap-a4cba907c516401df0a0b3c7eb095405 ). But his video story is yet not included in this Wikipedia page. This is one of my WP:NPOV complaint points.
 * BTW, this AP article would be the #15 reliable dependent article (and a 7th very related one). This says


 * You said videos are difficult to check and that they must first be transcripted and archived before they can be used as a reference. However, I don't see that requirement on WP:CITEVIDEO. Furthermore, at first I went along with you and asked your help on how to have them transcripted and archived by a reputable party, but you refused help. I'm sure I can figure out how to have them archived but I have no idea where to have them transcribed (as per your personal requirement/preference). Therefore, I say let's just please follow WP:CITEVIDEO, and add these 2 videos as reference as is. It is NOT a must to get their transcribed version, videos are okay as a reference on Wikipedia.


 * Another improvement I suggest is with the WP:SYNTH being made in the article. Amnesty International's report did not say a youth group called Samri was responsible (it rather said they have "spoken to witnesses who said forces loyal to the TPLF were responsible"). So let us again use sources very specifically and avoid WP:SYNTH. It was a similar issue with adding the Welkait ethnic group on Amnesty's report, from EHRC (which was corrected after I pointed it out). Let us not again copy EHRC's accusation of a group called Samri, into Amnesty's one (which rather only accuses "forces loyal to the TPLF" based on the witness it talked to, but not Samri). Synthesizing two different reports from two different sources and concluding Amnesty said Samri could be a WP:SYNTH.


 * If the text is getting long, it is because you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my points, so I have to explicitly explain them one by one. However User:Boud, thank you for spending time on these Wikipedia articles, but if there is an NPOV issue I pointed out, it is better to concentrate on the issues, so to remove the tag. Happy New Year! Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I do hope neither of you will find it impertinent or patronising that I would like to congratulate both of you in keeping your discussions productively collegiate and non-acrimonious. BushelCandle (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your editing and the interests of building an encyclopedia. I am just one of many editors - the opinions of others are needed. Boud (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC) (section link, until the section is archived) Boud (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have respond to this, and the response can be found on Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054. Or you can use this direct link :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Responses  Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The links above did not work for me.
 * Another relevant link may, in fact, be:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive328#Appeal_topic_ban_(of_User:Loves_Woolf1882) ?? BushelCandle (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Update of the "Response" with Diffs
(I have added the Diffs of the links I used in the response, perhaps for future references)! Here is the updated of the response, as another misleading story from Boud or someone like him is likely to come back.


 * * Hi, about my past, I have already discussed this in details with the Administrators before. I don't think it is fair to bring things back after 2 years.


 * * Dear Administrators, many of User:Boud's points, I have before responded to on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre, so I please ask you read that first.(Or its diff.) With all due respect, User:Boud is misrepresenting my points here. My original NPOV complaint points can also be found above it on the same talk page (Talk:Mai Kadra massacre-(or its first version diff))


 * * User:Boud is saying that adding in quotation "invaders" as exactly stated on the France 24 reference was wrong of me to do (https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20201205-ethiopia-we-are-in-our-homeland-the-invaders-are-attacking-us-says-tigray-s-gebremichael). However, I first explained on the Tigray conflict page LEAD that "invaders" was the term used by the TPLF(diff), and I put it in quotation at both the LEAD and the Info-box. I assume the Info-box should summarize the content of the page/LEAD. I have SEVERL responded to this before on Talk:Tigray conflict (or diff).


 * *However, look at the POV infobox on the Metekel conflict page Boud created without a real justification (since no independent media, or even the Ethiopian government reported it as “Metekel conflict”, except for Boud) diff. The Infobox is using an opinion from a foe/opponent of the  Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), in some Addis-Standard magazine “as a fact”. The Infobox does not even put the opinion in quotation, or as a claim. Infobox is presenting the opinion as fact. Boud not only created the page, but also regularly edits it. By the way, no independent media or organization have reported that OLF and/or OLA and/or TPLF are fighting in Metekel, not even the  AddisStandard reference Boud used (the magazine only puts it as accusation of their blood enemy- the, the PP government).


 * * User:Boud said "S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that 'TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows'". However what Boud said is not correct, this not my POV point (and this “reply” line I once said when he accused me of degrading TPLF, is completely being used out of context, as I'll explain here). My NPOV points are the once I listed the link to above (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag and WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD). I even said this reply line only once to him/her when Boud said I like degraded TPLF by calling them "some party". I clarified this for Boud before on December 26, 2020:- "I believe you first said, I like degraded them by calling TPLF "some party", so I was just trying to undo the degrading". This was the last line on this link discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic ). Boud, first accused me of degrading TPLF by calling them "some party", then when I reply a 2nd sentence to undo my alleged TPLF degrading 1st statement, Boud says my 2nd new sentence is pro-TPLF and he posts it all over the place, including here. Now he is even saying that my this one reply sentence is the justification for my NPOV complaint, however, this is not true, and I have written the two links to the real justification of the NPOV tag I placed.


 * * Some of my suggestion are even ani-TPLF. For example, in diff, I made the point that the Amnesty international report incriminated TPLF (not the Samri youth group). I asked things to be stated as on the Amnesty report (which said "forces loyal to the TPLF"), not Samri, and for the WP:SYNTH to be corrected. Implicating TPLF directly instead of Samri, thereby being anti-TPLF.


 * * Boud said "This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims...ethnic group called Welkait...". It is funny that Boud thanked me for correcting his this WP:SYNTH mistake on the talk page before, but now brings it here differently. Please admins read the flowing subsection about this point from the talk page, for fairness sake:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic (or diff)


 * * Boud said "S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline." Again User:Boud, with all due respect I have answered this on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre. You said videos are difficult to check and wanted them (or wanted once that are already) transcripted and archived before they can be used as a reference. I have understood what the the WP:PUBLISHED guideline says, and it does not exclude the use of videos that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party, like the once I used. They are broadcasted but not yet archived (and it's not a requirement to archive them first). I asked for others (or your) "help" on how to archive them (until I figure out how to do them myself), but they still can be used as is according to WP:CITEVIDEO (since they were broadcasted by a reputable party).


 * * Even though Boud says that only 1 of my 15 recommended very credible articles is relevant, that is not true at all. I have before listed the relevant parts from all the 15 articles here:- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre (first version's diff). And I even made a shortlist of only 5 specific once to include in the Mai Kadra massacre Wikipedia page (not counting the videos), as you read on the link above :- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre.


 * * All of my references are from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News, Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, NBC News, NPR and Committee to Protect Journalists, so I don't understand why someone would say they have POV issue. The person Boud is now supporting (User:KZebegna), called all my references from the above outlets  and . He does not agree with the addition of any content from the 15 articles because these are outlets which he calls :- Talk:Tigray conflict (or diff)


 * * Boud is misleading, when he says that I am working to give the reporting on the above very credible international media outlets (along the latest position of Amnesty International and the intentional Human Rights Watch) more weight, over what appears to be Boud’s favorite report from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
 * I) Even thought the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is run by appointees of one of the side of the war (the Ethiopian federal government), I didn’t completely discredited it, I only asked for it to not be given more than equal weight than the others. I did not even bring up the fact that EHRC’s leader Daniel Bekele is a former opposition politician who was convicted & imprisoned for two years for an attempted unconstitutional change in government (this is public record), by the former government sides his EHRC report is now accusing. Given the NOT impartial history of EHRC, I don’t know why Boud wants to take their report as the last word in the bible (e.g. Boud wanted first to make up an ethnic subgroup group called Welkait “everywhere”, because EHRC made up one in its report).
 * II) By the way, the international Human Rights Watch (HRW) to the contrary agrees with the reporting of the above international media outlets ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/23/interview-uncovering-crimes-committed-ethiopias-tigray-region ); contradicting with EHRC (EHRC stated the Mai Kadra victims were only Amhara/Wekait and the perpetrators Tigrayans). HRW reports both Amhara & Tigrayans were the victims, and points to federal forces as perpetrators, based on refugees.
 * III) About the outdated preliminary report of Amnesty International:-  Amnesty made a  preliminary report with its researcher Fisseha Tekle (Amhara ethnic), on this Mai Kardra’s said to be Amharas vs Tigrayan massacre. However, I only asked for the researcher to be named on the Wikipedia page, to point out if any bias (and therefore improve neutrality of the page). Furthermore, and more importantly,  Amnesty International (and its researcher Fisseha Tekle) has changed position from the outdated preliminary report. The outdated preliminary report said only Amhara ethnic people were the victims in Mai Kardra, but now even Fisseha Tekle has gone on NPR and Associated Press to correct this (https://www.npr.org/2020/12/28/950886248/hundreds-of-civilians-killed-with-machetes-and-axes-in-ethiopian-town), and now Amnesty International also agrees with the reporting of the above media outlets (that Tigrayans were also half of the victims in Mai Kardra). So Boud is acutely making a POV himself by suppressing the latest reporting of the 5 media outlets and the latest Fisseha Tekle (Amnesty) interview on NPR & Associated Press; and using only the “outdated preliminary report of Amnesty” along EHRC. I pointed out the update from the Associated Press several times to Boud before all this (as you can see on the talk page), even though he mostly ignored it ( https://apnews.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-massacres-d16a089f8dcb0511172b5662b9244f78 ). Lets please give all credible published latest views equal & neutral weight is all I’m saying.
 * * As you may have read my compliant on the first bold link I wrote above:- what could be a better justification for NPOV tag than presenting the side of only one. The page only has a subsection called "Federal government point of view" (Mai Kadra massacre) (diff) and gives the accusation of the one side (the federal government). However, it does not have a subsection called "Tigray's regional government point of view" also giving the point of view of the other side, and making the article neutral. The page also lacks significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic; and I have short listed 5 published reliable sources to added (and 1 or 2 video, giving the NBC News video a priority).


 * * Boud said I "posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors". This is not true again. Boud thought it was an error because s/he does not open videos, and the video on the same article clearly has the point I was making. I have pointed out this to him also (diff). There have been other incidents also when he accused me of error and then corrected himself (on my talk page on the massacre talk page, especially with the interpretation of the phrase "the army"). And about “massive amounts of content” is a misrepresentation. I first only put the links to the credible reference, then when he didn’t see my points with them, I posted the exact quote from the credible article. Then he is now calling these quotes “massive amounts of content”. S/he is accusing me of two opposite things again, one after the other’s reply.
 * I). A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from my talk page:-
 * II).A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from the Mai-Kadra talk page :-
 * * It is not fair to block me because of things that happened 2 years ago. Please review User:Boud's report and my response independently and decide if I did something wrong worthy of a block. Thank you. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are now subject to an editing restriction
Hi Loves Woolf1882, wish I came bearing better news. I've closed the thread at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents having found consensus for a 6 month topic ban from pages relating to the Horn of Africa. You may not edit or discuss articles, talk pages, or other content relating to Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in disputes with those nations. This restriction expires June 5th at 00:01 UTC. This should be considered a community-imposed topic ban, so any appeals should be made at WP:AN not to me directly. If you have clarification questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You can read the discussion and close at Special:Diff/998388191
 * Personally I consider it a tragedy that we have lost for so long the input of an editor that should have been cherished and educated. We have too few editors that are knowledgeable in this geographic area and are prepared to hunt down and interpret reliable sources in non-European languages. A missed opportunity. Reminds me of the situation with the Nazi concentration camps where the truth was censored and covered up for so long. BushelCandle 00:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Topic Ban
Hello Loves Woolf. I hope you don't mind me popping over here to your talk page to see if i can help a bit. I am sorry to see the result of the ANI report that Wugapodes has told you about in the section above (just to be clear, it isn't imposing the topic ban on you but the community; Wugapodes is doing the admin thing of determining consensus and passing on the message). Anyway, i thought i'd like to offer you two things ~ a bit of advice and some encouragement. I do hope that you might find something useful here; please give me a shout if i can help at all; happy days, LindsayHello 09:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Encouragement:  Please don't take it to heart that the community has imposed this (temporary) ban on you.  In all honesty, though it is a restriction, it needn't be much of a problem to you in your editing career here ~ i could name without thinking a dozen distinguished editors who have now or have in the past had various restrictions from the community or part of it.  You are still fairly new in your time here, and i am quite sure you have a lot you can offer the community.
 * 2) Advice: Observe the topic ban religiously, i mean, don't get anywhere near editing anything that anyone ~ even your worst enemy ~ might be able to link to the Horn of Africa.  You could edit about tropical fish, or John Donne, or the New Zealand Rugby team, or the history of South Pole exploration; i mean, the topics outside the ban are literally limitless!
 * A secondary piece of advice is this: Ask!  Ask me, if you like, or pretty much any other editor ~ almost all of us are pretty nice, honestly.  What i would do, though, is stay away (for a while, not necessarily for ever) from Boud:  You don't want to look as though you are participating in a feud, do you?


 * Hello, thank you for your advice and support. I don't take the topic ban to heart or anything. I was even blocked before, and I did not do so; and I even waited a year and a half doing nothing on Wikipedia. I'm still of course not going to bypass this ban. However, I really did nothing wrong worthy of this topic ban, so I would please like to appeal. Wugapodes said above it was at WP:AN, but someone else said at WP:ARBCOM. Where do I please appeal? Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that Wugapodes is correct, it would be at AN, as it is a community imposed restriction; ARBCOM is for behavioural problems that the community finds itself unable to resolve, and i don't think this rises to that level.
 * I do, seriously, urge you, however, not to appeal the ban; not now, at least. Wait at least three months (half of the length of the restriction), so the community can see you have taken it seriously.  But during that time, don't do nothing; find something else to turn your hand to (as i suggested above), or even do a bit of gnoming (which is mostly what i do), finding and correcting simple errors in articles ~ if you look at my contributions you'll find that i've edited a huge number of articles, but the vast majority of them once or maybe twice, then moving on.  Whatever you choose to do, do something which shows the community that you are an editor who cares about the project as a whole (the encyclopaedia), not just making one area within it reflect your views:  The community likes to see editors who have had trouble rise from their ashes and become productive elsewhere; happy days, LindsayHello 10:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As the ban is a community topic ban unrelated to any arbcom sanctions or any of the other issues arbcom deals with, the only real option is to appeal to the community. Arbcom no longer consider appeals of community sanctions (see Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals). Note however, although participation in that thread was not very high, the chance of a successful appeal of a community ban so soon after it was imposed is generally close to zero. It's far more likely an appeal may mean digging yourself into a deeper hole, i.e. a stricter ban. And that's referring to a general case. Given you were only recently unblocked and were socking about 18 months ago, the communities patience with you is likely to be even lower, so an appeal has an even lower chance of being successful and a far greater chance of going bad for you. Frankly, no matter how brilliant your editing over the next 3 months, if I were you I wouldn't appeal in 3 months. I would even suggest you wait several more months after the 6 months is up before you return to the area, and even then go very very slow. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a notice that your appeal of your topic ban has been denied by the community. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)