User talk:Dawit S Gondaria

I am not removing the translation the translation is in the Wikipedia page why don’t you get that. I should be saying the same thing with you, both your logic and understanding is weak King Solomon is an Abrahamic figure, so for you to say “of the bible” seems inconsiderate. Second, like I said before you might as well change the Amhara people’s wiki page to “Free people” people. Honestly, just leave it as Bete Amhara. English Wikipedia or not, leave it as Bete Amhara, the translation is in the Bete Amhara page. Rogeman123 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Solomonic dynasty were christian rulers of a Christian kingdom, can you acknowledge this fact? If so, in the context of the Solomonic dynasty, there's nothing wrong referring to Solomon as a biblicial figure, it is the correct context to put them in. Source back it up as House of Amhara. It is the literal translation, english wikipedia. You for some reason are removing the Bold translation of Bete Amhara, as if you don't want people to know it is translated as House of Amhara. Wikipedia is to inform, not to conceal information. I will keep reverting it back because your reasoning is poor and can't or won't contextualize Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Solomonic dynasty were Christians rulers, and yes Solomon is a biblical figure. But you need to understand that Solomon is an Islamic and Jewish figure too. “King Solomon of the bible” why does anyone ever mention that phrase rather then “King Solomon”. No one says “King Solomon of the bible” because he isn’t just a biblical figure, so why don’t you get that? Show some respect to the other Abrahamic faiths. Bete Amhara means “House of Amhara” so why are you changing that? I am correcting your mistake not concealing. I told you this before if people would like to know the translation they can go to the Bete Amhara page. I have added the translation beside it. Rogeman123 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you on the Amhara people talk page, let's stick to one avenue where others can join.

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of Amharic musicians. Thanks! Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fuhghettaboutit: thank you for reviewing the page! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians using Amharic in their music, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Fuhghettaboutit: great that the page is accepted, but i have a better title in mind. title: List of musicians using Amharic vocals. That way you remove in their music which is unnecessary, since musicians is already in the title. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jupitus Smart was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Pointless list as there can be multiple Amhara organisations across the world in different sphere and they cannot be incorporated into one list

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Amhara organizations and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of Amhara organizations, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jupitus Smart 17:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dawit S Gondaria! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jupitus Smart 17:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a source on Yekuno Amlak's claim on Solomonic descent. But the way you provided this source, we only know that someone said in 1986 in the journal Northeastafrican Studies on p. 11 that he indeed made that claim. That isn't quite enough for an inline citation. Please go to the trouble to find out who (author) said this in which article, and give us proper citation instead of a link to a dutch Google Books page. If you don't do that, you risk that this source (and the claim) will be removed again. This is your responsibility. LandLing 18:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LandLing First of all i reject you dictating what my responbility is. I added mulitple sources, there are a dozen of them. If you removed a multi-sourced statement, i will open a content dispute against you. Have a good day. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dictating anything to you, I'm making you aware of the rules of Wikipedia. I will proceed according to these rules. LandLing 21:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LandLing if you suspect something nefarious open a section in a talk page, if not search the sources for yourself. Otherwise we could involve the Wikpedia community in a dispute resolution regarding the statement, remove it again, i will open a content dispute to resolve the matter. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've done your homework for you. You really need to learn how to cite sources in Wikipedia in order to avoid this kind of situation in the future. In case you didn't notice - there never was a dispute between us on content, just on form. LandLing 22:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested on the Teahouse to Honestly, just try it. It's definitely an ambiguous case. If someone reverts it, then follow WP:BRD. If you like, you can point them back here and I'll take the blame :) (section bolded). By the time you added the image back today [1], it had already been reverted twice [2] [3]. Per WP:BRD: Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. (emphasis mine). Looking back I probably should not have suggested you do that to begin with. I feel bad for leading you astray a bit. While in general "just try it" is a Wikipedia guideline (WP:BOLD), I shouldn't have said to in this particular case, that was reckless of me and I should have looked further at the context behind it. Sorry. Leijurv (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijurv No need to apologize. I'm not starting a revert competition or a edit war xd. It was good it's get the conversation moving on a vague guideline, thanks for showing me the discussion. Instead of reverting i just went to User talk:Kolya Butternut talk page and pointing out that there was a ongoing discussion, that there's no consensus on collages, and he(and others) expands photomontages to collages in general, when that's no clear term in WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I find the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#MOS guidelines for a collage as the lead image / infobox image more appropriate to discuss it because this clearly moved beyond a single article. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to hear! It was good it's get the conversation moving on a vague guideline I very much agree! :) Leijurv (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawit! Back in April, I sent you an email with a seven-page PDF from Source Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: Volume 1 about the Amhara people, after your request at the Resource Exchange. Did you happen to download that to your own computer and if so, would you mind emailing it back to me? I've unfortunately deleted it on my end and another editor is interested in it as well. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dan! Yes it's part of my collection now :) I have sent you the pages via mail! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lifesaver. Thank you so much! DanCherek (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minyeshu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War Child.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dawit S Gondaria. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Amhara organizations, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dawit S Gondaria: In order to keep the draft there, you only need to edit it once in every six months. Platonk (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Platonk: thnx for the reminder. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need {{U|力}} to ping me. [[U|力]] just creates a link to the article on the letter U. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

力 Oops my bad, thanks for the note. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit S Gondaria: As an example of what I have suggested before, my last two edits show how to change a individual event article to a redirect into the timeline article. This edit sets an anchor (landing spot) in the timeline page directly above the material covering the event. And this edit blanks the individual event article and makes a redirect pointing to the new anchor in the timeline article. It is important that the two match up text-wise; I opted to use the old article title as the anchor name.

In this case, there was no material from the old article needing to be moved/copied/merged into the target article. If there was, I would have made a separate edit in the timeline article. And if I had copied content, I would note it in the edit summary.

The reason I did not use this method for Shimelba massacres and instead AfD'd it was because after evaluating it, there were no reliable sources saying it happened. I wound up deleting the information from both the timeline article and the casualty article, effectively removing anything to which I could have pointed a redirect. Hence, the AfD method.

I know you'll probably still find other articles to AfD, but I wanted to show you the method for using redirects when it is the more appropriate method. Platonk (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonk. Thank you very much for the suggestion and the examples! i will look into it Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting it cleaned up bit by bit. Good job on recognizing the problems in Amhara Region. I'm slowly working my way through the massacre articles a few at a time and, where appropriate, I'm turning them into redirects to the timeline article. Eventually we'll be able to clean up the timeline and casualty articles, and any remaining references to atlas and tghat. I wonder if we need to call for a close on that RfC re Tghat; the discussion seems to have run its course and no one has commented in 9 days. I'm finding WP more calm since the sock was removed; I couldn't keep up with his speed of creations. Platonk (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Platonk thanks, i'm actually so done reading about massacres, but for a times a day/week i will be going to Rastakwere contributions and see where else he vandalized. Yesah a decision on Tghat would be nice. Yes it's too much, and goodriddance. I salute your tenacity and endurance. Thank you! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This tool is helpful to identify which articles Rasta created and haven't yet been deleted. It doesn't, however, show redirects Rasta created, nor does it tell you which ones have been changed from articles to redirects. My best source of finding more of these is to scroll through the timeline articles looking for the "main article" section hatnotes. When I convert a spam-article to a redirect, I re-purpose the 'main article' hatnote (visible) into an anchor (invisible), therefore any main-article hatnote still visible is ripe for my next target. Platonk (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platonk Timesaving measure nice!! I lost you after that anchor, hatnote :P but yeah go get it Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already done so, you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia to your watchlist. Platonk (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to my watch, thanks! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your fight against vandalism on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. ― Kaleeb18Talk 03:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleeb18 Thanks! Question, how do you give barnstars? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Never mind found it, thanks again! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your welcome ― Kaleeb18^Talk 13:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just some tips to improve your talk-page edits.

• If you're linking to a Wikipedia article title, use 2 square brackets on each end. Example: [[Coca-Cola]]
• If you're linking to a URL (in or out of Wikipedia), use 1 square bracket on each end. Example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=1059381163&oldid=1058271469] or [https://www.coca-cola.com/]
• If you're quoting something and using Template:Tq, use 2 curly braces on each end. Example: {{Tq|The sky is blue.}}

Platonk (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platonk thanks for the tips, keep that in mind. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ue3lman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Lalibela seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. User:67.185.158.250 is right. Just because the Ethiopian government calls them terrorists does that mean that they are. Adding biased sourcing (like Borkena) to push your pov is not allowed. Reuters is good enough. Ue3lman (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ue3lman: you are mistaken so is the IP, clarify why you think Borkena source is biased according to you, does that include the Israeli source which says Tigrayan forces invaded Amhara region? It's not driven my pov as you and the ip claim, but stating the obvious. Reuters or American media don't get to decide who is or who is not a terrorist. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to clarify. It's pretty obvious just by looking at any article they make about the war. You say "stating the obvious". How is it? Because the Ethiopian government said so? If you're able to say tghat is a biased source, I don't see how you can't say Borkena is too. You're going to have to be more clearer on what Israeli source you're talking about because I don't see it. Ue3lman (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ue3lman: you should clarify instead of cherry picking terms. Fxempire is a Israeli news source and they basically repeating what Reuters reported in more clear terms, equating Borkena with Tghat is a bridge too far, but you can take that source out, i can also find other non Ethiopian sources that calls the TPLF for what it is, a terrorist group. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lalibela shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hey! I hope you're well. I just wanted to touch base on a couple of edits over on Habesha peoples. The lead paragraph has been extremely contentious, so we've ironed it out quite a lot on the Talk page. Basically, there's no one meaning of "Habesha" that we can consider basic. There's a historical development. We've tried to express the range of usage. I don't imagine that the paragraph is the best possible version, but because this has been so contentious it would probably be best to hash out an improved version on the Talk page.

With regard to the other edit, I manually reverted because the sentence cited an actual source. The info we provide shouldn't be different from the source that we cite. If you want to change it, you should probably replace it with another reliable source. However, given that you disagree with what the cited source says, the new version would probably need to reflect the existence of multiple points of view. Unless, that is, there are reliable sources that should lead us to believe that the current version reflects a fringe usage.

Take care! Pathawi (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pathawi: Hello i responded to you on the talk page, and the Gerard Prunier source is clear, i have read it, and it's not correctly used as it is, so i suggest you revert your manuel revert, or we have a content dispute to settle. Take care! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've replied. I think we can continue the conversation there so that it's easy to track for other editors. Pathawi (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to decline them, but it's unlikely anyone is going to protect 9 articles for sporadic sock activity. If another sock appears, simply report it to WP:AIV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Okay thnx, i'll just report to the ANI, it's the same sock doing it every few weeks. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abate Mekuria, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Ethiopia articles. Did you know there's a WikiProject for editors interested in writing about Ethiopia? If you would like to join, simply add your username under the members section on the WikiProject Ethiopia page. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the WikiProject Ethiopia talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future!

Platonk (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my edit summary, "RV" indicates reversion hence I wasnt the one to add the content originally, the IP is heavily disruptive across various articles. Use the warning template properly next time. Magherbin (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magherbin: I read it, and when you are the one reversing content, you still have to make sure it's correct [4]. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same as in reversing content in Tewodros I [5], make sure what you revert is accurate with the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the editor to start a discussion and change the status quo not me, secondly you falsely claimed I introduced incorrect content into the article hence you need to acknowledge your mistake. On tewdros, we dont copy paste word for word what the reference states, we use our own words. Is there a difference between the Adal sultanate, and the Walasma princes who ruled the state? Magherbin (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magherbin: I did not make a mistake, the avenue is now in Talk:Tewodros I, or do you want to continue on my talkpage? It's a direct quote from the source, Tewodros I died in 1414 during transition of Ifat to Adal. The source say Walashma princes which covers both of the dynasty of Ifat and Adal. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've developed some sort of obsession with my edits. You continually reverted my edits on the Amharas page despite me properly linking to the section on the Caste systems in africa page that mentioned Amharas, and you nominated a picture for deletion on the page for absolutely no reason. Before insulting me for a "juvenile edit description," or not reading the source, YOU need to properly read the source. The source states that the Werjih were one group that were affected by the Semetization of the region by Arabian migrants crossing the Bab al-mandab into the harar plateau. Afterwars, they would cross over into eastern Shewa. The Tigrayans and Amhras both were affected by another migration, not the one from the Harar plateau. Likewise, the Werjih are not said to have affected eastern Shewa themselves, nor are Amharas or Amhara region mentioned. Do you even know the motivation behind his inclusion of Amharas on the Werjih page despite Amharas not being mentioned in relation to them, or their Harari nationalist "Am"-"Harla" conspiracy? He's been doing this since early 2020 you so called Gondere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeteAmora (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BeteAmora: please sign after you post a comment. You seem to have a barrage of issues besides Werjih people (for which Talk:Werjih people is the avenue for discussion, not my talk page). I don't know who you mean by he? If it involves another editor, or content dispute, bring this forward at the talkpage.

If you mean this [6] Amharas are at beginning of Caste systems in Africa article, not somewhere midway or below in the article, so yes pointless edit.

As i told you earlier under subsection: Images, the file was missing essential source information, and the right avenue is on the page where it's up for deletion at Wiki Commons, not my talkpage. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this comment, in which you base your keep vote in a discussion on citations entered into an article by a banned sockpuppet, without verifying the citations, is WP:PROXYING for the banned sockpuppet. I just an hour chasing down these 19th century citations, reading the relevant pages, and as far as i can tell your assertions have absolutely no grounds in the sources Histoire sommaire de l'Égypte sous le gouvernement de Mohammed-Aly, NIMR, THE LAST KING OF SHENDI, E. A. Robinson, or Douze ans de séjour dans la Haute-Éthiopie d'Arnauld d'Abbadie. If you wish to use 19th century French sources to support your notability vote, please provide specific quotes, page numbers, and lines. I provided links to the freely available scans of the two French books. In regards to spelling, this sources are very divergent. The Ethiopian commander is rendered as Campfou, Kounfou, and Conefo which is different from Abir's Kinfu, which is also the form in the article. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikavoom: Very disingenious header, i did not make claims, or assertions, Abir Mordechai made the references to those sources in his journal, not some sock. Stick to the avenue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kalnabu. You happend to verify two out four sources in note 39, that's like half-assed source verification. If you are at it verifying, do it all the way before making pointless comments. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to make personal attacks, defend content by sockpuppets, and make votes and claims not backed up by reliable sources, as well as bringing up sources that do not say what you say they do then this is a behavioural problem on your part, and this is the place to discuss it before we discuss this behaviour elsewhere. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikavoom: You are the one making baseless accusation of WP:PROXYING, and you made it @Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kalnabu first before doing it here again. Stick to one avenue discussing the content, and stop abusing warning templates, and you will be reported for harrasment. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you make baseless claims contradicted by the sources you mention, supporting the original research by a banned sockpuppet of two separate battles. In these five edits: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] today you've made personal attacks against me. Warning you with an appropriate template after the first of them was not abuse, and consider this post by me as a final warning regarding proxying, abusing sources, false claims, and personal attacks. I am particularly offended by the use of vulgar slang against me above. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikavoom: Take it to WP:ANI or wherever, and remeber your own behaviour will be scrutinized as well. Abir Mordechai journal made references to those sources, i made from the get go clear that i was going verify sources after your premature nomination concluded, i said this two days earlier [[12]], you managed to find and verify two of them in note 39, not all (or did you)? And then came to my talkpage like with your rubbish comment like you have all figured out, and that i made assertions and claims. Let me repeat it again for a dozen times already. Abir Mordechai wrote that journal, not the sock. Abir Mordechai used several sources as references for his journal, for which you didn't verify them all. Like i said here [[13]] i support source verification of those sources, because Abir Mordechai is otherwise considered a reliable source. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abir is reliable. He also has a spelling error in Kalnabu, which he partially corrected the next in the index of his 1968 book to Kaltabu. The sources he cites do not use Kalnabu, but various other spellings and alternative names. Several reliable sources the cite Abir's 1967 paper use it as a source for the Wad Kaltabu battle. Your assertion that Abir is referring to a separate event is based on nothing. Absolutely nothing, other than the claims of banned sockpuppet. Sources disagree with you. Pikavoom ^Talk 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasa and Kasa: Papers on the Lives, Times and Images of Téwodros II and Yohannes IV pp 32-68 (there were two more pages of citations of this section than you requested so I included them just in case) and 117-119. Some images may be duplicates and some are on their sides, but they should all be there.

Happy citing!

https://imgur.com/a/3aPvGUf

User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 15:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dawit, can you check the edit request that I did on the page of the Amhara people??? 213.137.71.117 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dawit, Emrpess Taytu didn’t had a Tigrayan origin/family. So why is that mentioned on her page? Khtes247 (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khte247: i'll look into it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Taytu father was Ras Betul Haile Maryam. He was half Amhara (from his father side) and half yejju-Oromo (from his mother side).

And Taytu mother origin from what I heard is ether from Gondar or Gojjam. She didn’t had any Tigrayan family. Her only relationship to Tigray was that that her father once fled to there, and that her uncle (Wube Haile Maryam) was the governor of Tigray for 20 years. Khtes247 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Please do. Taytu father was Ras Betul Haile Maryam. He was half Amhara (from his father side) and half yejju-Oromo (from his mother side). And Taytu mother origin from what I heard is ether from Gondar or Gojjam. Taytu didn’t had any Tigrayan family. Her only relationship to Tigray was that that her father once fled to there, and that her uncle (Wube Haile Maryam) was the governor of Tigray for 20 years. Khtes247 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, Dawit, Do you here? Did you say my message? Khtes247 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

saw* Khtes247 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you you restore Emperor Tewodros II page? A lot of information got removed from there. Including sources of his ethnicity, his uncle and his mother origin. Geysb819 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check it and restore it if you can. Geysb819 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you reverted my deletion of these URLs, which IMHO do not benefit Wikipedia. Although there was a time when Google Books would offer online copies, in whole or part, of some books, that has not been the case for several years now. There are ISBN links that allow users to find in local libraries or purchase a copy of the book. This means that links to Google Books does nothing more than drive traffic to their website. And seeing that Google is a for-profit corporation, I fail to see any rationale for supporting them over, say, Amazon or any other bookseller. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Llywrch: I respect the argument you are making, but it does provide free access to quotes for the content on wikipedia. It saves other editors time, trouble and money verifying sources. For all i know Amazon does not allow partially accessible books. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an article you recently created Mashasha Warqe, is not ready as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage with citations from reliable and independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. I've moved your article to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's WP:GNG guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1150217400:"I don't care if you don't respond anymore, in fact please don't respond you damn mohammedan, go read the census properly and stfu.

Your Latin American analogy was ignored because it's simply an idiotic comparison, and even more moronic for you to mention it twice". Valereee (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Valereee, this is by no means to question your call. If I may just add some cultural context on the case, as an editor who has background on Ethiopia and it's heated ethnic, historical, and as well as religious divisions that seem to have gotten worse in the past several decades. Reading through the discussion Talk:Amhara people, it seems the argument was provoked in a subtle way when محرر البوق called the Kebra Negast book propaganda, which can be taken as an insult for the Amhara and Tigray people. This could easily be overlooked by editors who don’t have the background on the meaning of the book holds. A similar example of this provocative statement could be an insult to the Book of Kings and other similar chapters of the Holy Bible against Christians. Please note that religion and politics have never been separated in the Amhara and Tigray cultures or history since ancient times, and the book is taken as the pillar of core values and a reference that provides guidance (to both). The intention of my note is to shed light on both sides related to the offensive discussions. Petra0922 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Petra0922! Thanks for the insight. It doesn't actually change anything for me -- if you're upset to the point you're going to escalate from "your holy book is propaganda" to "you damn mohammedan", you need to step away from the keyboard. If you're working in an area that is naturally contentious or where you have strong feelings, you need to recognize that's happening before you publish that edit summary. Or else don't work in those areas.

DSG might have been unblocked if they'd have immediately responded in their first request, "You're right, I was very wrong to say that, I'm extremely sorry and embarrassed that I allowed myself to get so upset that I lost my temper and said something I should not have said, and I will be more careful in future." Instead they're arguing that because someone came in here and gave them a warning, that somehow restarted the clock. Valereee (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I was genuinly surprised, i didn't knew you still could get blocked when you cease personal attacks after an warning. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DSG, I'm sorry you were surprised, but now you are aware. I'd recommend you take that learning into account before opening another unblock request. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Valereee. I know I am late to respond due to travel with limited internet access. As an incoming editor, I am also learning about the importance of responding asap to serious disagreements and blockage discussions. I hope I am not misunderstanding that (from DSG’s note) this is also a serious learning opportunity for @Dawit S Gondaria and I assume that the editor would take the corrective penalty to heart, if @Valereee perhaps considers reducing the penalty from indefinite to a certain time limit to allow DSG reflects on the matter (?). Petra0922 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a penalty or punishment. Blocks are to prevent ongoing disruption, and most are indefinite to require the blocked editor to interact rather than simply waiting them out. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: There was a 38-hours gap between my comments [[14]] and the block you imposed [[15]]. How was that tackling ongoing disruption? I already ceased my behaviour.

I tried to convince your fellow admins in my own words of my intentions, but this proves to be a ridiculously unforgiven hurdle. Wikipedia has a long list of bad unblock examples, not one good unblock example. I can't read the minds of @Jpgordon:, @Yamla:, @331dot: of what makes a good unblock request. Instead saying in my own words, should i just copy and paste the example you gave [[16]] will that alleviate your concerns? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said below at least part of what I think you need to agree to in order to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I didn't mean to ignore you, but i can't agree to that with the suggestion you made, because i can't reconcile with the decision made by Valereee for reasons explained below. I'm however requesting to you or any other admin for an opportunity to make my case at WP:AN. I don't believe this unblock request process will give in my case a fair review, because i believe, strongly, that the decision made by Valereee was a arbitrary one. My arguments are however quickly overlooked, admins looked at comments made, and they gave single remarks, there's no scrutiny for the way the block was imposed by Valereee. I'm basically blocked for something i was no longer engaged in, almost two days later, and for removing a comment on my talkpage because Valereee assumed something from the edit summary. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That admins are not agreeing with you does not mean that the process is unfair. You may make another unblock request for someone else to review, or if you have cause to consider the process so unfair that no one will give you a fair hearing, you may contact arbcom. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Yes i argue this process does not give me a fair hearing in my case, because admins such as @Jpgordon: and @Yamla: focused on words said, and gave highly unsatisfactory answers, no real answers to the concerns i tried to highlight in my unblock requests about the way the block was imposed, just short remarks about my behaviour that i made in a discussion i was no longer engaged in almost two days prior. I feel like am being punished by the arbitrary decision making by one admin, and that there are no serious inquiry by other admins. It's like the admins here are waiting for certain statements, regardless of my genuine concerns the way admin Valereee blocked me. Thank you for suggesting arbcom though. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You question what makes a good unblock request- that is one that tells what you did wrong, what steps you will take to avoid doing it again, and tell what productive edits you will make. I've given the viewpoint that those steps you will take should include a topic ban, as a means of starting to rebuild trust and provide assurance. We can't just take your word. If you decide to disregard that viewpoint, you can, but that reduces your chances of being unblocked. If you have a grievance with how you were blocked(for a very serious personal attack), and really want to invest the time to pursue it, you will need to get unblocked first.

You say you can't read our minds- we can't read your mind either. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot when admin @Valereee blocked me, i was not engaged in any disruption. I was not making any personal attacks for almost 38 hours prior to the block, i received a warning, and realized on time that i should disengage and i did just that. Admin Valereee came almost two days later blocking me citing personal attacks from a discussion i disengaged from.

Admin @Valereee then added another reason, for deleting a comment/warning from my talkpage with edit summary irrelevant', based on this admin's assumptions/speculations, and without any engagement with me prior, i was blocked, basically for removing a comment on my talkpage. There's no wiki policy that requires me to keep it on my talkpage. The comment was irrelevant because i no longer was engaged in disruptive activity.

I thinks it's very unfair to have no avenue against arbitrary decisions made by admins, certainly in my case.

i disengaged from a heated discussion almost two full days prior to the block. I took steps to avoid it. I was not engaged in disruptive activity. I have been doing productive edits prior to being blocked, and will do so again given the opportunity. I disagree with @331dot viewpoint because i strongly feel that the block in the first place was unjustified.

It would have been totally different if i didn't disengage and continued personal attacks, i would have had no problems owning up mistakes.

Please understand from my situation. In order to report @Valereee, i would have to first get unblocked by convincing other admins, by saying something else during the unblock request. This is not credible because my position has been clear throughout, i don't agree @Valereee and the way i was blocked. Seriously how sincere and credible will i sound when i make up nonsense to appease some admins. I have genuine concerns about the way i was blocked by this admin, and i have genuine concerns that this process does not help me in any way to adress it, and that other admins did not look into it. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack was wholly unacceptable. That it took a bit to block you is immaterial; blocks are not required to be issued within a time limit. Sometimes a community discussion can lead to a block for unacceptable conduct- that's not required to be done within a time limit. We can't read your mind to know that you will stop or that you understand what was wrong with it. Did you announce your intentions to stop making personal attacks before the block? I didn't see where you did, but I could have missed it. I do not think that you should be unblocked without a topic ban of some form, perhaps from the Amhara people article or related topics.

As I said, if you don't feel any admin out of the ones available will be what you term "fair"(the only unfairness I see is that no one has agreed with you) your avenue of appeal is the Arbitration Committee. I doubt they would take this matter, but I could be wrong. If you were unblocked first you could request a community review of the block at Administrator action review, but you can't get to that point yet since you think no admin will treat you fairly. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit, copying and pasting was never going to work, but rather cynically suggesting it might is kind of digging your hole deeper. Here's the difference between the unblock request I suggested and the ones you keep making (and your most recent comment above): Mine doesn't keep trying to make excuses and harping on about not having any intention to keep doing it once you'd received a warning, which you apparently think we should have intuited from the fact you removed the warning with an edit summary of "irrelevant".

It's clear the progress of events is still chafing, so let me make clear what it looked like to me:

1. You make a personal attack
2. You get warned
3. You delete the warning without response to the person warning you, without any expression of remorse, without saying you won't do it again, without an apology to the person you attacked, and with an edit summary that it was irrelevant
4. I come across the personal attack and come to investigate
5. I see someone has brought it up as a warning and you have completely ignored the warning
6. I block you
7. You start complaining that you've been badly treated in multiple ways. You complain that getting warned should restart the clock, that the block isn't necessary because you weren't intending to do this again, that it took too long to get blocked, etc.
8. You insert at least one of these complaints into every unblock request
9. And now you're asking what exact wording it will take to satisfy the admins, which frankly doesn't sound very sincere

331 is offering you a lifeline -- I suggest you ask them what t-ban they believe is needed.

Valereee (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I will not be making a unblock request the way you are suggesting it. There's no need for subtle threats (digging hole deeper remark), i will never use your words in my unblock request.

1. I was in a heated discussion, and made comments that i usually don't make, i received a warning.
2. 38 hours after being disengaged from that discussion, you arbitrarly decided to block me, because you made assumptions based on me removing a comment from my talkpage with the edit summary irrelevant.
3. There's no wiki policy that requires me to keep a warning on my talkpage, especially not after so many hours. There's no wiki policy requiring me to respond to the person warning me, or to show remorse, or apologize. These are probably your wish lists, but not policy. There was no engagement from you to seek clarification when i removed a comment from my talkpage from a discussion i was no longer in, you just came, and you blocked me very arbitrarly.
4. I did not completly ignore the warning, this is your assumption entirely. I was disengaged from the discussion, again i can not stress enough, you came 38 hours later. There was no ongoing disruption.
5. I will insert this any of my unblock request, but this is genuine and sincere, i'm not going to resort to lying to appease you Valereee.
6. Yes i was being sarcastic, and at the same time trying to showcase the dillema i'm in, that didn't get through unfortunatly.
7. I have been sincere throughout my unblock requests. It was a unnecessary, and arbitrary block based on assumptions made by you, almost two days later, without any engagement from you. There was no ongoing disruption. I will say this again and again because this is what happend, and this what the diffs shows. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any fair process for me here, because i will not resort to lying just to appease, when i strongly believe i'm being punished for something i was no longer engaged in. I would like this to bring this forward to a larger audience such as WP:AN, because editors can take their time going through the diffs, and make a decision. I want to make the argument, that the way Valereee imposed the block was 1. arbitrary, and 2. The arguments Valereee made to justify the decision was not fair and not based on actual policy, and 3. Zero faith in this process in my case, admins here seem to expect me (blocked editor) to accept blame for the block no matter what, no inquiry is done when there is strong arguments against how to block was imposed. The guideline for unblock appeals is very limited in this regard. There's no scrutiny against admin who imposed the block, no one is questioning, no is investigating, nothing. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit, you can write up a request for scrutiny of an admin action and ask anyone (doesn't have to be an admin) to post it for you at WP:XRV. I'm happy to do that for you, if you like; ping me when you have your statement ready. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dawit S Gondaria (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unnecessary block, the issue was dealt with after i received my final warning [[17]] for those comments, i didn't engage in personal attacks after that warning. So this block comes as a strange surprise. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, "you damn mohammadan" even once is over the line. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dawit S Gondaria (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I didn not engage in any personal attacks towards an editor after i received a final warning [[18]] for those comments. The blocking admin [later added another reason for the block]. I deleted two comments from my talkpage, including a warning with an edit summary ‘‘Removing irrelevant comments’’. I understand there's a misunderstanding with the blocking admin. [explained my reasons for deleting them]. I am not aware of any policy that requires me to keep a warning on my talkpage, i removed it because it was no longer relevant, since i wasn't going to engage in further personal attacks, and i didn't. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your behaviour was abhorrent and this is nowhere near sufficient to get unblocked. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dawit S Gondaria (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I know why i am blocked. I won't do it again. I also explained in several diffs in previous unblock requests and on the talkpage that i had no intention to continue with that behaviour after i received an warning. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see a pathway forward here without a topic ban. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• You deleted that warning with an edit summary of "Removing irrelevant comments". Valereee (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes i did because it was no longer a relevant topic in my opinion, since i wasn't going to engage with that editor in that way. I thought it was settled. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how come the edit of the Amhara people been descanted of the Axum empire got removed? Liran6391 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your interest is here, but while this user is blocked they should only be using this page to discuss their block and request to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dawit S Gondaria. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mashasha Warqe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dawit, you are the only non-anti Amhara person on Wikipedia. Request to be unblocked. This is not fair what happened to you. 2A02:6680:210B:67AF:CCF3:2B82:3CA5:978 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]