User talk:Matan ibn Uthman

Battle of Shimbra Kure

Hello, I'm Magherbin. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. Magherbin (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the total number of cavalry which was mentioned by Shihab ad din in page 74 which mentions the ethiopian cavalry at 16,000 and infantry at 200,000. I also added Commanders mentioned in page 85. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the only thing you're doing. Why are you removing content on the article and using primary sources excessively for content? I think we've had this discussion with (possibly your other name) on the Adal Sultanate talk page, there cant be multiple editors misinterpreting the same primary sources. Are you Anthony Walcott? [1]. Magherbin (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing cited content? Also you misinterpret the primary sources and spam the article with primary sources. My suggestion write an academic journal from a reputable publisher then we can have your interpretation in the article about primary sources. Otherwise you need secondary sources for the claims you've made. Magherbin (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did I misinterpret it. The Futuh is clear that it was 200,000 infantry and 16,000 cavalry not 200,000 total. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you've made are not solely figures of the battle, explain this removal of content [2]. Magherbin (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Arab support in the Futuh Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I suggest searching keyword "Arabs" in the Futuh there's plenty of instances mentioning Arab involvement for example "Five-thousand Muslims from the tribes of the Somalis, Harla, Malasai and desert Arabs were killed" take a look at the document yourself [3]. Why also remove the instance of Somalis mostly fleeing the battle or the Harari involvement? Magherbin (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not enough to suggest a strong presence of Arabs and definitely not enough to say they were solely responsible of The victory. The Malassay being all Harare is also disputed

As for the Muskets during the battle with Ras Baniyat after Shimbira Kure the Muslims possessed on Musket

“The Muslims had just one musket that U t m a n used to fire. He stood up, lighted it, and fired it at the leader ofthe foot-soldiers and killed him. Thereupon the Muslims called out with one voice, 'God is the Greatest'. The trees, the stones, the mountains and the earth answered them, and they charged as one man.” Page 98, Futuh Al Habesha. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provide secondary sources for your interpretation of what happened at the battle and for the claims you've made such as Malssay werent Harari at the Shimbra Kure. We have multiple secondary sources that state Malassay were Harari hence it shouldnt be removed. If you have an interpretation where a historian says what you have stated then I dont have a problem with including it but it seems you're basing this solely off primary sources. Otherwise we dont remove citations from qualified historians. Magherbin (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hassen states the Malasay were Afar and that the bulk of the Adalite military was Somali and Afar.

Source:https://eajsh.haramayajournals.org/index.php/eajsh/article/view/475

The reason I deleted those quotes were specifically because Arab Cuiracassers which were not mentioned by Prof. Aregay in his work. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I didn’t use primary sources to delete content. Do you need secondary sources to add content. Btw I’m not giving an interpretation I’m literally quoting from the source. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also why did you delete my addition about Prof. Aregay contesting the use of firearms during shimbra Kure. I used a secondary source, I didn’t delete the Pankhurst citation, and I cited it. It seems to me that you’re using your powers to unjustly force ur version of history. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Countless people have already adressed this to you, but again, I think you should still look at this;

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40732663

author; Manfred Kropp

[05:11] Yubudirsi (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Battle of Shimbra Kure 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. Magherbin (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information. Magherbin (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who gave you the right to do that, You’re the one forcing you’re ethio nationalist agenda Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Battle of Shimbra Kure) for edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matan ibn Uthman, as described in the above warnings, when your edits are challenged you are expected to discuss and work towards a consensus. If you are unable to come to an agreement the editor who objected, there are dispute resolution processes to invite additional editors to the discussion to reach consensus, in particular WP:3O, WP:DRN and WP:RFC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Battle of Antukyah. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the word "decisive" to that article seemed unnecessary and did not look neutral, and considering how you have already been warned - and blocked once - for other disruptive edits this month, this warning is in place. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Izno (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts (1538–1560), you may be blocked from editing. Kia (motors) has nothing to do with the Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts of 1538–1560. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I meant to add Killed in action Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

==Disambiguation link notification for Janu

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Somali slave trade

added links pointing to Indians and Turks

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Adal Sultanate into Zeila (historical region). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ogaden War, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Socialwave597 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matan ibn Uthman Can you not? You are literally deleting official stats from the Ministry of Defense. Secondly that source doesn't even say what you just said. you put 20,000 killed when the source says 20,000 killed and wounded. Socialwave597 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ogaden War. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. Please reread your source, - "Under the leadership of Hassan Mahmoud, the WSLF waged a speculator campaign, [...] Their forces numbered around 12,000 troops of whom half were Somali Army volunteers." These are numbers of the WSLF not the full Somali Army, Tareke's source[4] (which you deleted) also said the WSLF numbered around 12,000-15,000 during this time. You really need to stop with this. Socialwave597 (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sent a source stop vandalizing Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matan ibn Uthman I'm not sure how well your reading comprehension is, but once again, the source is referring to the entire strength of the WSLF of the time, which correlates with Tareke's source[5] (which you deleted) "The Western Somalia Liberation Front (WSLF) and the Somali Abo Liberation Front (SALF) had the lion's share with about 18,000 men; two-thirds of these belonged to the older WSLF whose history antedates the revolution." There is also a source from Ayele which also mentions that their army was around 60K fighters. Now, either you can stop violating the WP:NPOV, or (seeing how you already have multiple warnings), I can get an administrator involved in this dispute. Your choice. Socialwave597 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Grumpylawnchair. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Zeila (historical region), 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I provided sources Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of wars involving Somalia, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing reliably sourced content and inserting your unsourced views. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not vandalizing those have no source we can get a mod involved if you want Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Johnny Somali, you may be blocked from editing. Prove it. Source it with WP:RS or it will be removed. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zeila (historical region). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Quit edit warring your unsourced claims. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already made a post to the talk page stop deleting my edits and discuss them at post Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Zeila (historical region), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. See [6] Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi 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.
You are definitely crossing the line. Stop bringing back your preferred version. Do no revert until we are finished on the talk page. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Matan ibn Uthman! Your additions to Traditional education in Somalia have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2024 (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).

Matan ibn Uthman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why was I blockedMatan ibn Uthman (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason for the block is stated in the block notice above. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2024 (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.