Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:50, 3 May 2015

March 2015

Hello, I'm Gyrofrog. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! 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. Gyrofrog (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Walashma Dynasty

The Walashma have two genealogies:

• One points to Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn, a Somali saint who devised a system a Somali nomenclature for Arabic vowels, his work eventually evolving into Wadaad writing. A Harari historian shared this , as did the semi-legendary apologetic "History of the Walashma" and Enrico Cerulli (a scholar in Ethiopian & Somali studies) who got the genealogy from Harar . It's only through him in this genealogy that they have 'Arab origins' because this Somali saint like all Somalis had an Arabian genealogy (even groups like Harari people have such genealogies; they're rarely ever to never legitimate)...

• The other genealogy which is the most accepted and shared, even shared by the famous Ibn Khaldun , is one that claims they are descended from Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib via the supposed Darod clan ancestor Isma'il al-Jabarti whose only descendant ever known to affect the Horn of Africa in anyway was Abidrahman, founder of the Darod clan. With any group claiming a Jeberti/Jabarti connection including Jeberti people who are mostly Tigrinya Muslims associating themselves with the Darod clan progenitor who supposedly came to the Somali Peninsula and took a daughter of the Dir clan chief named Dobira as his wife.

Their genealogies are "Arab", yes. Just like all Somali genealogies are but just as the Walashma page stated (you apparently didn't read all of it and see it's mentioning of where their genealogies trace to? Idk) their genealogies tie them directly & clearly to Somali figures who in turn claim Arab origins which are totally unlikely to even impossible (claiming to be descended from Hashemites/ relatives of the Prophet for example). Anyway, this is why historians such as I.M Lewis do not simply call them Arabs but "Arabized Somalis" or "Somalized Arabs" . Go to the talk page, there're even more sources on this there (I think it was the last discussion where a member was claiming they were Argobba).

They weren't Arabs (if you consider them "Arabs" then all Somalis are Arabs-> I suppose some would argue that though despite the genetic clarity that isn't true ;) ) and I suggest you read the page you're editing and the various sources as well as genealogies shared on it before you make such an edit... Otherwise; take care of yourself, man. And welcome to editing Misplaced Pages. Awale-Abdi (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the Walashma Talk page

I made a discussion at the end of the Walashma talk page-> do check it out. Out of respect I wrote "Somalized Arab" or "Arabized Somali" on the page for neutrality's sake until we're done with our discussion. If you don't join in on the discussion then you're basically just edit warring, man. And that is against the rules here. So please; just join in, we'll have a civil conversation and hopefully move onto the lives we both have outside of this site. Thanks, I did appreciate your "multi-ethnic" compromise, says to me that you're interested in being civil here, thanks. Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at User talk:Harari234 with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, 70.74.238.17. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zekenyan (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Template:IPsock

May 2015

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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.

Would you kindly stop edit warring and socking Harari234? AcidSnow (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)