Hello, Wizeone2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The former political state of Medri Bahri lacks a flag on wikipedia. Do you know if this is the correct flag [1] Duqsene ( talk) 10:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Bertdrunk. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
First Italo-Ethiopian War, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the
verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a
"fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an
inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the
burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
15:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
RileyBugz. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions —the one you made with
this edit to
Eritrea— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
RileyBugz
Yell at me |
Edits
00:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
First Italo-Ethiopian War, without citing a
reliable source using an
inline citation that clearly supports the material. The
burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Lalibela. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Doug Weller
talk
21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Kingdom of Aksum. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Doug Weller
talk
20:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 20:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Kingdom of Aksum. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk)
17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
17:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)]@[[[[User:Acroterion] He continues his edit-warring: [2] [3] [4] [5] LeGabrie ( talk) 18:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
]@[[[[User:Acroterion] Now I'm just being lied about, I simply wrote the correct information and now he is accusing me of something just to get me banned, he is the one that keeps reverting everything so he is edit warring. Wizeone2 ( talk) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
23:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)]@[[[[User:Acroterion] What personal attack have I made? Please explain to me? This is ridiculous, he accused me of edit warring and I did the same thing Why I'm I getting banned?. Wizeone2 ( talk) 23:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
]@[[[[User:Acroterion] How have I edit warred when the latest edit I made on that page was purely correct information that was not reverted or challenged afterwards? And Yes I can when they post fake information. Wizeone2 ( talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
]@[[[[User:Acroterion] I don't know maybe il get banned for making a spelling mistake, but how is saying now " I've been lied about" wrong when I have been accused of edit warring when you have just admitted that there was no revert, so there was no edit warring in this particular case, and therefore I was lied about. The edit is not the same because I added more context to the description of the foreign image made in 1907 which is important considering it displays a White man with blonde hair as a King of Ethiopia which is absurd and rather hilarious, the fact that Wikipedia thinks that's fine to keep up there and not designate it as misinformation or misleading information tells me all I have to know about this website, I don't know if you guys would let a painting made in 1907 by Africans displaying a Black man as an Anchient King of England still be there but whatever. My approach to Wikipedia will be never using this website again, especially seeing that treatement ive been given and also seeing that Un-authentic information and misinformation is allowed and I get in trouble for trying to correct it and not those who do it, it's rather pathetic. Wizeone2 ( talk) 01:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop with this edit war. There isn’ any vandalism in that edits.
What’s the problem? DavideVeloria88 ( talk) 19:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
See the advice at {{ uw-3rr}}. You have previously been blocked, so you should know this is serious. There is a risk of an indefinite block. Before making any further reverts, you should try negotiating. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Italo-Ethiopian War (again) on my talk page. Between April 8 and 12 it looks like you and User:DavideVeloria88 resumed the previous edit war on this article. I don't intend to put up with another edit war. Please work with the other party, or use one of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is extremely confusing when you change casualty figures. If the two of you can't negotiate I am willing to put the page under full protection. Then nobody could edit. That would be intended to force a proper discussion on the talk page before the page can be altered again. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Hip hop. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Take your concerns to the talk page and don't edit war freshacconci (✉) 21:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Wizeone2 ( talk) 05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)== Battle of Gallabat ==
Recently there has been a dispute between us on the Battle of Gallabat article regarding the use of the term "Pyrrhic victory" i have come to your talk page to elaborate on my stance better than I can usin edit summaries. WP:RESULT (One of Wikipedia's guidelines) states that the only things that should be in the military conflict infobox are ""X victory", "Inconclusive" or "See aftermath", whilst specifically stating that terms such as "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for the infobox. It should matter that the source says it was a "Pyrrhic victory" as the WP:RESULT states that there are only three possible results that may go in the results section. DervotNum4 ( talk) 01:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no dispute you are invoking your bias on the page which is actually against the rules unlike the 'recomendation' you linked which states itself "this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles" you are vandalising the page by removing an edit that is to the letter directly from the source, do it once more and I will take it to the mods,
Wizeone2 (
talk)
05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Wizeone2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The former political state of Medri Bahri lacks a flag on wikipedia. Do you know if this is the correct flag [1] Duqsene ( talk) 10:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Bertdrunk. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
First Italo-Ethiopian War, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the
verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a
"fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an
inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the
burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
15:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
RileyBugz. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions —the one you made with
this edit to
Eritrea— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
RileyBugz
Yell at me |
Edits
00:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
First Italo-Ethiopian War, without citing a
reliable source using an
inline citation that clearly supports the material. The
burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Bertdrunk (
talk)
22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Lalibela. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Doug Weller
talk
21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Kingdom of Aksum. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Doug Weller
talk
20:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 20:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Kingdom of Aksum. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk)
17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
17:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)]@[[[[User:Acroterion] He continues his edit-warring: [2] [3] [4] [5] LeGabrie ( talk) 18:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
]@[[[[User:Acroterion] Now I'm just being lied about, I simply wrote the correct information and now he is accusing me of something just to get me banned, he is the one that keeps reverting everything so he is edit warring. Wizeone2 ( talk) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
23:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)]@[[[[User:Acroterion] What personal attack have I made? Please explain to me? This is ridiculous, he accused me of edit warring and I did the same thing Why I'm I getting banned?. Wizeone2 ( talk) 23:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
]@[[[[User:Acroterion] How have I edit warred when the latest edit I made on that page was purely correct information that was not reverted or challenged afterwards? And Yes I can when they post fake information. Wizeone2 ( talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
]@[[[[User:Acroterion] I don't know maybe il get banned for making a spelling mistake, but how is saying now " I've been lied about" wrong when I have been accused of edit warring when you have just admitted that there was no revert, so there was no edit warring in this particular case, and therefore I was lied about. The edit is not the same because I added more context to the description of the foreign image made in 1907 which is important considering it displays a White man with blonde hair as a King of Ethiopia which is absurd and rather hilarious, the fact that Wikipedia thinks that's fine to keep up there and not designate it as misinformation or misleading information tells me all I have to know about this website, I don't know if you guys would let a painting made in 1907 by Africans displaying a Black man as an Anchient King of England still be there but whatever. My approach to Wikipedia will be never using this website again, especially seeing that treatement ive been given and also seeing that Un-authentic information and misinformation is allowed and I get in trouble for trying to correct it and not those who do it, it's rather pathetic. Wizeone2 ( talk) 01:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop with this edit war. There isn’ any vandalism in that edits.
What’s the problem? DavideVeloria88 ( talk) 19:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
See the advice at {{ uw-3rr}}. You have previously been blocked, so you should know this is serious. There is a risk of an indefinite block. Before making any further reverts, you should try negotiating. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Italo-Ethiopian War (again) on my talk page. Between April 8 and 12 it looks like you and User:DavideVeloria88 resumed the previous edit war on this article. I don't intend to put up with another edit war. Please work with the other party, or use one of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is extremely confusing when you change casualty figures. If the two of you can't negotiate I am willing to put the page under full protection. Then nobody could edit. That would be intended to force a proper discussion on the talk page before the page can be altered again. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Hip hop. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Take your concerns to the talk page and don't edit war freshacconci (✉) 21:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Wizeone2 ( talk) 05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)== Battle of Gallabat ==
Recently there has been a dispute between us on the Battle of Gallabat article regarding the use of the term "Pyrrhic victory" i have come to your talk page to elaborate on my stance better than I can usin edit summaries. WP:RESULT (One of Wikipedia's guidelines) states that the only things that should be in the military conflict infobox are ""X victory", "Inconclusive" or "See aftermath", whilst specifically stating that terms such as "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for the infobox. It should matter that the source says it was a "Pyrrhic victory" as the WP:RESULT states that there are only three possible results that may go in the results section. DervotNum4 ( talk) 01:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no dispute you are invoking your bias on the page which is actually against the rules unlike the 'recomendation' you linked which states itself "this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles" you are vandalising the page by removing an edit that is to the letter directly from the source, do it once more and I will take it to the mods,
Wizeone2 (
talk)
05:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)