Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Habesha peoples, you may be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Menhelicks (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing now is just cruising toward a block. I very strongly encourage you to read the guidelines I've suggested & maybe take a day or two away from Wikipedia. Pathawi (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are edit warring and deleting any discussion about the content dispute. Threatening me with blocks and bans...why? I assumed good faith, but you have been doing everything to show me that you have no good faith in your interaction with me. Stop threatening me, stop harassing me. Menhelicks (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot block or ban you: I am not an administrator. I am not threatening you. I am telling you that this is the likely outcome of how you're engaging Wikipedia. Pathawi (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are presenting yourself to me as if you are an administrator and threatening with being banned or blocked becuase I disagree with your edit warring on the Habesha article? You approached as if you are a friend but you deleted anything I did and then continued to focus on me. Why? You could just argue in the article about the unreliable source or lack of source in that article. Menhelicks (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that I'm an administrator. In fact, I think I've told you twice that I'm not. I have also twice, now, told you that I'm not threatening you. I have tried to be friendly, but I am certainly not your friend: I am a fellow Wikipedia editor who thinks that this project works best when we are collegial collaborators. I also believe in Wikipedia process, part of which is that when there are disputes we work them out on the Talk page rather than through edit summaries. I have tried to tell you this several times. The really brief summary: When there's a conflict, hash it out in Talk, then edit the page. I don't think the back-&-forth we're having right now is useful. Pathawi (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the talk page, I tried using the "unreliable", "citation" tags, I've tried bold editting as you mentioned in the many posts you've done. You even said "I guarantee", that you wouldn't be the one to undo my edits, but you end up doing that. I posted with a citation, but you outright deleted that. You told me my sources are unreliable but yet every other source on this article so far is "reliable" to you? Oh, it agrees with your point of view. I get, you have a Pro-Ethiopia bias, that is fine. Just admit that and argue with good faith. Menhelicks (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not accuse me of "wasting time". I am politely dealing with a lot of remarkably ill-informed discussion about this article, some of it very possibly ideologically-motivated. Personal attacks on editors are forbidden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, I think I've worded what I meant poorly: This isn't meant as an accusation against you. This is a criticism of these repeated lists of unsourced criticisms & claims, & how that wastes your time. This is not intended as a personal attack. Pathawi (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations to the lead to forestall some of the less productive discussion. We know for a fact (since others have investigated) that there was a Reddit thread about supposed "Eurocentrism" which brought several new editors along, all shooting from the hip in the absence of any specific issues. We could put all those citations into comments, but for the moment I think they need to be visible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap: I read the Reddit post, & saved screenshots (it has since been appropriately deleted by the moderators of r/Dravidiology). One of the new curry-only editors claimed not to have been brought in by Reddit. The most recent editor is not new, & arrived several days after the Reddit post I know of was removed. I suspect that more recruitment has been going on elsewhere. I’m trying to get a sense of the extent of meatpuppetry (& possibly canvassing) going on here. Pathawi (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Meatpuppetry seems to be much harder to deal with than simple socking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]