User talk:Aqooni

Aqooni, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Aqooni! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn

I have reverted your edits on Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn, the source cited makes no such statement. If you could cite specific pages it would be great. Kzl55 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note the new source you added still cites Islam and Abyssinia Through the Ages, and that source clearly states Walashma dynasty to have 'claimed' Arab ancestry. Do you have any other sources? Kzl55 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

On Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn the biography section states and was regarded as a native man of the Horn and was not of Arab background with a citation Effects of Sixtenth Century Upheavals on the History of the Horn. That source cites Islam and Abyssinia through the age which was your original citation. The reason I was asking if you have any other sources is because Islam and Abyssinia through the age specifically states Walshma to have 'claimed' Arab ancestry. Furthermore, I. M. Lewis includes the Sheikh's genealogy in Saints and Somalis: Popular Islam in a Clan-based Society (p.91) and it that of an Arab man, he also refers to him as Sharif Yusuf. Also, if you do not mind please keep the discussion here on your talkpage so both of our replies could be read in order. Cheers Kzl55 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Where in Islam and Abyssinia through the ages do the Walashma claim Arab ancestry? From my readings, that book shows the native background of the Walashma dynasty, and even points to Yusuf Al Kownayn as their patriarch. Furthermore, they contrast the native Walashma with the foreign Mukzhumites whom they conquered, explicitly showing the longevity and success of the Walashma Dynasty in the Horn of Africa, was due to their their native background, unlike the Mukhzumites who were Arab immigrants. Shiekh Abi-Bakr Al Alawi states this clearly within the book. Which is why I am confused as to the frequent removals of this valid and important historical source from this page. Aqooni (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Walashma are mentioned in Islam and Abyssinia through the ages on page 109, it states the Walashma claim to be of Arab ancestry. I. M. Lewis mentions the Sheikh's Arab genealogy in Saints and Somalis: Popular Islam in a Clan-based Society on page 91, please have a look. This is why I reverted the pages and why I am asking you if you have other sources. Regards Kzl55 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe we are talking about the same book because from what I see Shiekh Abi-Bakr Al Alawi is clear on the native background of the Walashma within the book.I still do not understand as to why the source is being removed. Are you saying the book contradicts itself? That doesn't make any sense. Aqooni (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you give the page number where the book states that? Also please add a colon (:) before your reply to indent your text. So if you are replying to this message you can see that my reply has 3 colons (:::) up top, so add one more (::::) and type your reply. Kzl55 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I am under the impression it is on page 56. I lent my copy of this book to a friend of mine. However what I stated as a quote from Shiekh Abi Bakr was direct text from the book. (Again which is why i am confused as to it being removed, as other sources on this page do not have page numbers listed) However I do want to include another source supplementing that fact with the book Kashf as Sudul Can Tarikhas-Sumal: Wahamalikahumas-Sabca (Uncovering the Somali History and their Seven Kingdoms) written in 1974 by the great author Shaykh Abdulahi Rirash, on the last page of that book, there is a photocopied Harari manuscript of Yusuf Al Kownawyn's descendants and it says Yusuf was of native Somali background. It even shows the list of his descendants, linking it up to Umar bin Dunyahur It goes from Yusuf Al Kownawyn to his son Mohamed then to Hamud, then to Dunyahur, then to Umar (Umar Bin Dunyahur). Again with these fantastic additions to this page, I am not sure of the removals. Aqooni (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no mention of Walashma on page 56, the page details the story of early Muslims seeking refuge under Negus of Aksum, where did you get that page number from? The only mention of Walashma in the book is on page 109. Also, what I was saying about the colons, you add one extra colon per the number of replies, my explanation above may not have been all that clear, please have a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages under the header Indenting. Kzl55 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've reverted those citations for now. Would still be interested to see the correct page number you mentioned for Islam and Abyssinia Through the Ages. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

the page number is correct, stop reverting valid sources and deleting them because they do not fit the narrative you are trying to create. Thanks Aqooni (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

As I have stated there is no mention of Walashma on page 56. You do not seem to have actually seen the page you are citing, being "under the impression" it is page 56 is not enough, reliable sources need to be verifiable on Wikipedia. The only mention of Walashma is on page 109, and it clearly states their claim of Arab heritage. I. M. Lewis also includes the Sheikh's Arab genealogy in Saints and Somalis: Popular Islam in a Clan-based Society (p.91), where he actually refers to him as Sharif Yusuf. Likewise in A Pastoral Democracy which states "[He] came to Somaliland from Arabia and began to teach Islam and Arabic" (p.264). Citations in reliable sources are plenty. What you are doing is disruptive, please do not revert the pages; getting involved in an edit war risks your account getting blocked. Kzl55 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I dispute the book page number as I have no evidence from you showing if that number you are putting forward is real or not, but all of my other sources are valid. Besides that text, I have plenty of other sourcs showing the Walashma dynasty was started by Yusuf Al Kownayn. You are removing the verified sources in order to fit a narrative that is not clear. Is it unknown whether or not the shaykh was somali or arab but both sides must be shown. You cannot delete the verified sources just because they go against your arab theory. Removing verified sources for no reason is cause for wikipedia to remove accounts as far as I know.Aqooni (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You can not dispute the source you have brought into the discussion. You claimed to be "under the impression" that your source states the claim on page 56, that is not the case. I see that you have removed it since. I have no issue with showing both sides provided sources used are reliable and verifiable. As for your most recent edit, the paragraph makes little sense, it contradicts itself by stating the sheikh is both a Sharif (thus an Arab) and ends stating he was "not of Arab background". Also, your last sentence still uses Fathi Quath's Islam and Abyssinia through the ages as a source, that book has one single mention of Walashma on page 109 and it actually states that they 'claim' Arab ancestry which contradicts the statement. I will remove it. Feel free to put it back if you can provide other sources for this statement. Kzl55 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

History

Hey wikipedia, I am a big African history fan!Aqooni (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aqooni. Let's work together and protect Somali history. Do you mind bringing back Adal Kingdom page bac?. I would love to contribute Dir history sir and I recongnize Isaaq as part of the Dir clan. Some fools might tell me that Isaaq is bigger so how are they Dir and I tell then well Ogaden is bigger than Darood so what is your point? Anyways please bring back the page and let's change Ifat Sultanate page together lol. I have many sources and I'm sure you do too. Let's clear the Habesha propaganda that try to deny the Somali history. Miledisco (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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) 00:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits on Gabiley

I posted this on the Gabiley talk page, but I have to agree with user Koodbuur on the demographcs of Gabiley. The Gadabursi are a small minority group which do not live in Gabiley city in large numbers at all. Gabiley city is most definitely not shared, and any edits suggesting that are erroneous. Gabiley is wholly dominated by the Jibril Abokor segment of the Habar Awal subclan of the Isaaq. I believe that you are making these edits to create a false narrative that Gadabursi are anything other than a small minority group in Gabiley. I ask you to please stop making false edits and stick to the facts. Linkjan2014 (talk)

Source is again outdated from 1988, the Gadabursi share the town with the Isaaq according to the 1994 source from the same website The Aqoon One 01:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to not understand what I'm implying. That is a highly credible source from Canadian Immigration. You have provided none, and clearly are pursuing a clan based agenda to create facts where there are none. I am warning you to stop or I will report this. Linkjan2014 (talk)

You are again spreading misinformation and false truths. Your 1988 source that you are referencing is outdated and was replaced by the 1994 publication I am listing here, published by the same website and organization. Which shows the town is shared between the two clans. You are again showing your bias and are disputing valid sources. My source is from 1994 and is from the same organization and is as follows: Canada; Immigration and Refugee Board; Research Directorate (1 May 1994). Somalia: Information on the situation of Gadabursi clan members in Gebileh in, north west of Somaliland,. Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. "The largest sub clan is the Madahasi which neighbours the Jibril Abokr." The Aqoon One 01:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Gabiley 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.

You are edit warring across multiple pages, please stop and continue to discuss any issues you have in the talk page or you risk your account getting blocked. I count five edits on the Gabiley page alone which is in clear violation of Wikipedia's three-revert-rule, this usually leads to accounts getting blocked. I will not report it seeing you are new but please engage in the talk page rather than getting involved in endless edit wars. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Gabiley 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.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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) 21:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring warning #2

Your recent editing history at Gabiley District 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. I suggest you stop the edit warring and discuss your edits on the talk page please, what you are doing is not constructive. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aqooni reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: ). Thank you. Kzl55 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Tog Wajaale

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Signature concerns

Hello. I seem to notice that you are properly signing your posts on Talk pages and noticeboards, such as at WP:AIV, but Sinebot appears to be adding a signature for you. This can happen often with cases like this most likely because the custom signature you currently have does not appear to have a link back to your user space. To remedy the situation, I suggest one of two options:

1. Alter your signature to embed a link to your user page.
2. Adjust your settings such that Sinebot does not sign your posts for you.

Hope this helps, and if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the help desk. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia 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) 03:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aqooni. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop!

Please stop placing protected edit requests on non protected pages. If you want to request page protection, please see WP:RFPP. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature - 2nd

Hello Aqooni, your signature does not contain a link, which makes it run in to the text on talk pages. Please see WP:SIGNATURE for information on using signatures, then go to Special:Preferences to improve it. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Third request: please add at least a link to your talk page per WP:SIGLINK. clpo13_(talk) 19:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I have fixed my signature, still getting used to Wikipedia. Aqooni (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello,

It seems that you are back again trying to disrupt the Gabiley pages with erroneous edits. I noticed on your talk page that you are also pushing a tribalistic agenda, and insulting users who call you out on this agenda. I will stop editing the Awdal pages if you leave the Gabiley pages alone. Let's not make this nasty and resort to petty tribal insults. You stick to your regions (Awdal) and I will to mine (Gabiley). Let's just leave it at that and we can go our separate ways. Linkjan2014 (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent requests for page protection

Hi Aqooni! I just wanted to let you know that I declined your recent requests made to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In most cases, the articles you requested protection for haven't had any edits made to them in many months and were definitely not in situations where applying page protection was justified at all. Before making any more requests for protection, please take some time and review Wikipedia's protection policy and make sure that you have a full understanding of when applying page protection is justified and when it should be considered. In a nutshell: We don't protect pages preemptively or "in advance" (except for very rare circumstances or on templates or modules that are high risk) - we only apply protection to articles in a reactionary measure when disruptive edits are actively being made at the time and at a high enough rate or frequency that protecting the page is a logical solution over having editors sit there and revert all of those disruptive changes going on (hopefully that makes sense).

I appreciate your contributions to the project, and I hope that my message doesn't bring any stress upon you - we were all new to Wikipedia and the various policies and noticeboards at one point in time... mistakes and miss-understandings are completely fine and they're no big deal at all (so long as you don't purposefully and blatantly repeat them multiple times without care and that you let other editors help you). From the feedback you've received above, it looks like that's what you've been doing, so I don't anticipate any issues ;-). Nonetheless, If you have any questions about Wikipedia's protection policy at all, please don't hesitate to message me on my user talk page and ask me them. I'll be more than happy to answer your questions and make sure you understand everything - that's not a problem at all :-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits, again

We've already had this discussion and the Gadabursi prescence in Gabiley district has already been proven to be irrelvant and minscule. Any other reading of the facts is dishonest and not grounded in reality. Stop editing the Gabiley Pages & Habar Awal pages with erroneous sources and trolling/misrepresenting the facts. No need for tribal insults and petty edit wars. I will not hesitate to escalate this to mods if you continue down this path.

As long as Somaliland controls Awdal, all the pages related to Awdal will bear the Somaliland flag. I didn't edit anything relating to clan with the Awdal pages, just the political realities that they fall under Somaliland. You are just a biased, Anti Somaliland troll who is very predictable and easy to read.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are not in good faith and it is against Wikipedia policies to remove valid sources. I have reported you for vandalism. I hope you stop vandalizing pages and utilize Wikipedia for what it really is. A way to show valid and correctly sources information. If you have any questions in how to cite information, please ask me on my talk page. All of the pages you have edited indicate in Source 1 that is a region of Somalia. Provide a source saying otherwise. Aqooni (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If you honestly believe Gadabursi are anything other than a small minority, you are sadly mistaken. This issue keeps coming back on wikipedia and you can't accept reality. Like I said, you are an anti-Isaaq troll. You didn't even delete your tribal insults to another user who called you out on your very own page. I reported you back as well. Linkjan2014 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Impartial Moderator

GeelJire, I want to ask you as an impartial moderator who is neither Habar Awal or Gadabursi, would you agree that Habar Awal are the majority in Gabiley district and Gadabursi are a minority group? It seems that Aqooni is mistaken and thinks Gadbursi are on equal footing with the Habar Awal in this district. I'm trying to come to a consensus here since Aqooni keeps starting an edit war every few months over this.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You are still mistaken. You are removing the Gadabursi presence on multiple pages without cause, and also misusing sources that do not mention the towns in question! You need help editing pages clearly. You keep using a source about the entire Gabiley district, on smaller towns trying to prove demographics of these towns. Absolutely ridiculous. Stop mis using sources and removing the valid ones I add. No where I have claimed majority status, but merely presence. If you need help in learning how to edit pages, please do not hesitate to ask me.Aqooni (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aqooni,

The community here will not accept any edits that specifically doesn't include the statement that the Gadabursi have a 'minority presence in Gabiley" along with the Toljecle, Akisho, Dir (Madigaan and Gurgura) groups as well. Nothing about Gadabursi makes them special from the other minority groups, it is Jibril Abokor + minorities. That is the facts which you refuse to accept.

If you are willing to concede and include that specific fact also, then I will make the edits to the respective pages and stop this petty edit war.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have proof of you on multiple pages indicating that you wrote certain towns are exclusively Isaaq, when in fact they weren't. That is vandalism. Also you have purposely misused sources for what I suspect is a tribal agenda. I will detail this all out when I make a detailed report. I am absolutely confident in the sources I posted and they can speak for themselves. As for the Gadabursi presence in certain towns in Somalia, if they reside there, then it will be shown.I also have more sources I will add soon indicating certain demographics of other towns in Somalia. I will let a Wikipedia moderator handle this issue as I trust their judgement. There is no need for vandal like edits at all.Aqooni (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aqooni,

Is that a yes or a no to my question? I will make the edits if you accept that the Gadabursi presence is that of a minority community. I guarantee you will never find any source suggesting otherwise.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Linkjan2014, your question on Gabiley which is another town, has nothing to do with Tog Wajaale, the main issue on hand, the Gadabursi do reside in Tog Wajaale and within the broader Gabiley District and I have the sources proving that. The Gadabursi also reside in Gabiley, but you keep editing the Gabiley District page as "exclusively Isaaq". Clearly you do not want to discuss this matter properly. I will let the Wikipedia moderators handle this issue, I have the proof of these vandal edits. Aqooni (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aqooni,

I offered you a solution, you haven't given me an answer. Clearly you do not want to discuss this matter properly. Like I said, you are a user with an axe to grind against Somaliland and Isaaq. You're agenda is clear as day. I also replied to you on the Tog Wajaale talk page but you've been ducking my calls for consensus and solution building.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Linkjan2014 Yes , i agree. As far as i am aware , Habar Awal , specifically Sacad Muuse are the majority of Gabiley district. GeelJire (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much GeelJire, I appreciate your balanced and impartial take in this dispute. Aqooni, I trust that this can be resolved now. We've had an impartial, experiecned user also confirm that I was indeed correct in stating that Gadabursi have a MINORITY presence in this district, with Sacad Muuse (Habar Awal) being the majority community. I will begin editing the respective pages to reflect this fact if you have no other objections.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello welcome to my talk page, we are discussing the Gadabursi presence within towns in the Gabiley District I have ample sources showing they reside in towns there. It seems like we all agree they reside within towns of that region. I am not arguing majority or minority status, but merely presence.Aqooni (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aqooni My comment was in reply to Linkjan2014's question. I don't think he was disputing Gadabursi presence in the district but whether or not their numbers were significant enough to rival the Habar awal population. That's how i understood it. But if you both agree that HA make up the vast majority in the district , then there's no need to further this pointless edit war. GeelJire (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello GeelJire, It seems that Linkjan2014 misunderstood as well, as I have never claimed majority status or any numerical positions at all between Isaaq or Gadabursi within the Gabiley District. But merely the Gadabursi presence within the Gabiley District that I have provided sources for on Tog Wajaale and the Gabiley District page itself. You are right, it seems we both agree that both groups reside in the district. The constant back and forth editing I believe will cease from this point. Aqooni (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aqooni, I didn't misunderstand anything, both I and GeelJire are in agreement that both groups DO NOT reside in the district on an equal footing. Sacad Muuse (Habar Awal) are the Majority and the Gadabursi are a minority group. All future edits WILL reflect this fact. You keep dancing around this point. I want you to understand that is the entire point of this dispute. Linkjan2014 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You are more then welcome to provide sources showing your hypothesis of minority standings of any groups. But you have to keep it in context, which you have NOT been doing ( by misuing broader district sources as demographics for towns and wording them as such). I will provide sources showing the Gadabursi reside wherever they reside within Somalia. We both agree that the Gadabursi reside in Tog Wajaale and within the broader Gabiley District, if you want to argue numbers go ahead, but do NOT remove the Gadabursi from where they reside (As you where doing before). That's vandal editing and what you have been reported for in the past, apart from that happy editing. Aqooni (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aqooni, Until you CAN PROVE That Gadabursi are not a minority group, don't suggest they have a presence in the district that is is similar to that of the Isaaq. Both GeelJire and I agree you are hopelessly mistaken. I will not remove any presnce of Gadabursi, but will make it ABSOLUTELY clear they are a minortity group in any town throughout Gabiley district.Good luck, and hopefully this edit war can end as you have finally accepted the fact you are a minority in the district and its towns.Linkjan2014 (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Like I have mentioned before, I am not arguing majority status at all in the broader district, as you are doing,but rather presence in towns. If you have PROOF that the Gadabursi are minorities in towns they reside in, by all means bring them forth. But that does not mean you can use the broader district source and use them as town demographics (as you have been doing before and have been warned for, multiple times). Keep editing on Wikipedia as I enjoy reading multiple streams of information.If you want to argue majority status within towns go ahead. Happy editing!Aqooni (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely Correct, GeelJire. You've understood the exact nature of the dispute. I offered to edit the pages to mention the Gadabursi minority presence but Aqooni has been ignoring my messages and dodging my suggestions for a consensus based edit. Linkjan2014 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again GeelJire, I want to thank you for weighing in with your expert, trusted analysis as a member of the Somali Wikpedian community.

Linkjan2014 You're welcome sxb , i hope this dispute is settled now. But reading your recent replies to each other i think this debate concerns articles other than the Gabiley District (which in my opinon is accurate and fairly worded in respect to the clan demographics) and goes into specific towns and their demographics. As i am not from Waqooyi galbeed or Awdal , i am not that knowledgeable on the specifics, so forgive me if i'm reluctant to chime in.GeelJire (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Linkjan2014 is claiming majority status within towns, they need to provide sources proving that, without misusing broader district sources as he was doing before. That was my only issue with their claims. Thank you for moderating this issue Aqooni (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aqooni, Until the day you find a source that states otherwise, all Gabiley related pages will continue to refer to Gadabursi as nothing more than a minority group. The Onus IS ON YOU to prove otherwise. Best regards and good luck finding any such sources.

Regards,

Linkjan2014 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Aqooni I think it is logically sound to presume the Gadabursi make up a minority in many towns if not all towns within the Gabiley district if you take into account their minority status in the district as a whole. Just my opinion though. But until we find sources that list every towns demographics i think Linkjan2014's Broader district sources will have to do for now. GeelJire (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

GeelJire, Exactly. Solid analysis as usual. Similarly the logical corollary of your statement must also be true. If the Sacad Muuse (Habar Awal) are a majority in the Gabiley district, it can be safely assumed that Gadabursi must be a minority in all of the towns of this district as they have been established to be a minority in the district as a whole. So until Aqooni can provide a credible source proving otherwise, the clarification that the Gadabursi are a minority group in this district and all its towns will NOT be removed from any Gabiley related article.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wajaaale discussion and recent edits

Aqooni,

You are trying to destroy evidence. The tribal insults you posted on you're page prove you're not impartial. You can dance around the issue all you'd like. I saw your discussion on Wajaale. I will gather sources to show you you are mistaken.

Also, stop posting "warnings" on my page as if you have any authority to ban me or take away my editing privileges. You are a user just like me.

Linkjan2014 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As an older user then me on Wikipedia.I am bewildered at your vandal like edits and reluctance to use talk pages to discuss sources. I am glad you are finally now utilizing the talk page on Tog Wajaale to discuss the sources I listed. My only claim is Gadabursi reside in the town of Tog Wajaale while you are claiming that they don't. That is clearly false according to the sources I listed. Again I am still surprised that a user who has been on Wikipedia that time you have been on for is engaging in such behavior. Also to my knowledge, issuing warnings on talk pages is what other users can do. I used this page as a guide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Disruption Aqooni (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint

Please see my recent comment at WP:AN3. It appears you have broken WP:3RR at Tog Wajaale and are risking a block. There may still be time for you to respond and promise to stop warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

To do

Hi Aqoni, Mildesco is back with another name, he is using Bayesadam name on the Tog Wajaale article. Can you report him at sock puppet investigation so the admin can ban him. 78.61.13.15 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Reer Nuur has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Reer Nuur. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reer Nuur (May 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Reer Nuur 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:Reer Nuur, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reer Nuur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aqooni. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aqooni. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somali National Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SSDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

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. 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Battle of Dilla 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Koodbuur (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Dilla Massacre

Hi Aqooni! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well! :-) I just wanted to leave you a message regarding the Dilla Massacre article and the edit and move warring that was going on over there. Koodbuur has been blocked for 36 hours for his/her engagement in the edit and move warring, but for reasons that I'll explain below - I ended up deciding against blocking your account as well. :-) I just wanted to talk to you about your edits and changes to the article and to highly caution you about them. From the wording, spirit, and principle of the edit warring policy, you both were equally engaging in edit warring and move warring by undoing the actions of one another in a back-and-fourth fashion and in place of resolving your disputes properly, and you could've been blocked and held just as accountable as Koodbuur. However, when I reviewed your contributions and your edits to the article, I saw that you were continuing to engage in discussion on the article's talk page; Koodbuur had responded once and stopped doing so. You were also attempting to restore the original title of the article after Koodbuur's repeated attempts to move it and without prior discussion or a request in the proper process and page. While the the-revert rule is only a bright-line rule and not used to gauge a set number of reverts, you were in line with the 3RR rule. Koodbuur was not. You were within a hair's breadth of being blocked as well, but due to the reasons I listed - I decided not to do so but instead leave you a message and a warning. In the future, you want to avoid making back-and-fourth reversions like you did when the issue and dispute is content-related, and you want to resolve the issue properly instead by discussing it on the article's talk page. If the other user doesn't participate and keeps reverting the article, report them to this noticeboard so that an administrator can step in and handle the problem. Don't put yourself in a position where you could wind up getting heat and in trouble for violating policy... it's not worth it, and it just makes everything harder on yourself when there are resources and noticeboard pages available to have an administrator step in and help. :-) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. Please take my words to heart and keep them in mind with any similar situations in the future. It'll keep you out of trouble and make your "wiki life" much much easier. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair judgement, I just wanted the other user to use the talk page, and not move the page title/delete half the sources willy nilly. It all happened very quickly, so I tried to be fair and start utilizing the talk page, encourage the other user to use it too, go on their talk page and mention the edit waring etc and mention in my revert edits to discuss any relevant changes (use the talk page etc). In the end I did decide to report because It seemed like it would be a back and forth deal. I will be sure in the future to avoid this back and forth revisions like you mentioned. You are right next time I will just report, and not put myself in harms way. Again thank you so much for the advice and kind words. I suspect there will be more moment against the article I created, but I believe the sources stand for themselves. I did have a question if I can request the for page protection at this time? Also I did use english news sources for the page, but the other user was deleting them. I need to look at this further to protect the valid sources from vandal deletes and censorship, similar to what you observed. Thanks! :-) Aqooni (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aqooni! Due to the edit and move warring and the dispute ongoing with the article, it has been fully protected from editing for one week, and has been move protected indefinitely (this is to require anyone who wants to move the article to request it first). This is in order to direct both of you to the article's talk page so that you can resolve the dispute and come to a consensus together. Koodbuur won't be able to respond to any discussions there until his/her block expires 36 hours from now (or if he/she is unblocked early), but you can (and definitely should) continue the discussion and follow up there with your concerns over the user's edits and changes so that he/she can respond as soon as the block ends. The full protection on the article can be removed as soon as you both message me on my user talk page and state that you've come to an agreement and that the disputes have been resolved. Otherwise, it will automatically expire in one week. You might be right; things may just continue as they did earlier once Koodbuur's block and once the protection set on the article expires, but I'm hoping that this isn't what happens. If it does, you know what to do this time... ;-) Please let me know if you have any further questions (just ping me in your response here so that I receive a notification). Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, thank you so much for your sound advice, I asked 2 neutral users to provide consensus on the page in question, so the discussion will continue in the talk pages. Meanwhile, the user Koodbuur that got blocked, I believe is trying to do some revenge reporting of some sort, and reported me here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Aqooni which I have written a rebuttal too. My question is regarding consensus, I asked random users to provide feed back, but it seems like I am being reported for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing, how can I prove this is a baseless report? Thank you for your advice.Aqooni (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Aqooni - I'm sorry that I missed this response you made here... I just noticed it a bit ago after reading your message on my user talk page. Next time, just ping me in your response by typing "@Oshwah", "{{ping|Oshwah}}", "{{reply to|Oshwah}}", or "[[User:Oshwah|Oshwah]]" in your message (any of these will work, but "@Oshwah" is the easiest), and it'll notify me that you replied to me and that I need to read it. Anyways, I left a response to your message on my user talk page, and you can read it by clicking here. It will address the concerns you expressed in your response here. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is linked here [1] Koodbuur (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Dilla Massacre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dilla Massacre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilla Massacre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Koodbuur (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi am planning on making a page for the snm massacre of ogaden refugees

am planning on creating a page for the SNM massacre of Ogaden refugees in the 1980s i have sources from human rights organization or hrw one from 1990 another 2007 but i think am gonna need help creating it if you have additional scholarly sources I would appreciate if you can send it to me in my talk page am aware of your work on somali wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashaamo (talk • contribs) 07:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

never mind i already created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_Massacre i would appreciate your help in enlarging the page with more sources and references. this page has a lot on the information about the massacres committed https://www.cja.org/downloads/Why%20Somalis%20Flee.pdf would aprpeciate if you help out by enlarging the page with the information from that source.--Gashaamo (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Aqooni, check your email when you have the chance. MustafaO (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gulf of Aden. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok

Ok I have more sources and references and I will added as Wikipedia rules. Lion Pappa (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

AN3 notices

You have twice recently used the template {{An3-notice}} on User talk:Lion Pappa to say that there is a discussion about that editor at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. In neither case did such a discussion exist. Please don't issue that notice without there being a relevant discussion. In English we have a term "crying wolf". --David Biddulph (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I created the discussion just now @User:David Biddulph See here: ([[2]]) Aqooni (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Somalia/ Somaliland political dispute. David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Dilla Massacre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dilla Massacre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilla Massacre (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Koodbuur (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)