User talk:يوسف حسين/Archive 1

Note
This account was admitted by User:Kendite to be his/her secondary account from another wiki, that he/she used on this wiki "by accident"; see user page history... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm LogX. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Yemen without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can 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! --     L o g     X    21:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
--     L o g     X    21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted references
When removing &lt;ref&gt;s using blacklisted links, as you did in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemen&diff=586032835&oldid=586002806 this edit], please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind&#32;(e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemen&diff=586047865&oldid=586033180 these]). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 14:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

3rr warning on Queen of Sheba
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above message is just harassment. But please don't revert should Til revert you; he's also on his 3rr and I'll take care of his relentless POV pushing if he keeps vandalizing.
 * Frankly, it's hard to deal with that fellow sometimes.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 05:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have responded to these ad hominem attacks on User:Aua's talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:51, 15 December 2013 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mocha, Juban and National hero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yemen
I don't understand your recent edits on Yemen. Here you removed what you described as "nonsense", can you tell me why did you do that? and here you basically repeated what was already discussed in the article. Yousef was displaced around 525-527 AD. When Abraha displaced Esmiphaious, Aksum lost control over Yemen permanently. Many tribes did not recognize Esmiphaious authority as evident by an inscription mentioning some 30 tribes hostile to him and everything is probably sourced. Abraha had the support of many christian tribes during the revolt of Yazid bin Kabshat . I don't understand your edits and i would love an explanation. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, this picture right here is about AFRICAN BLACK slaves brought to Zabid.. you removed everything in the article regarding enslaving Negroes and changed it as it would appear that the slaves were native Yemenis. Large numbers of black slaves were brought from the horn of africa, they and all Tihami Arabs who intermarried with them are called al-Akhdam. This is just actual history not "nonsense". Mamluk is Arabic for "owned" and the Mamluks of Yemen were not like the Albanian Mamluks of Egypt. The Albanian Mamluks were knights and Mercenaries while the ones in Yemen were east African servant slaves. I'm working on Yemen article and i know that country and its demographics and divisions very well. racial religious, and characteristic differences between Highland Yemeni Arabs and lowland "yemenis" are huge and noticeable. everything will be added just please do not take the liberty of adding your own thoughts and conclusions. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The edits were indeed inaccurate. Field slaves shipped from East Africa to Arabia were Zanj/Bantus. That's who's depicted in that manuscript . And Zanj were not from the Horn region, but rather from the area below it, in the African Great Lakes region (see Slavery in Ethiopia and Slavery in Somalia for the actual facts on slavery in the Horn region). Further, the Ethiopian Axumites actually ruled Yemen for a number of centuries. This actual fact was by contrast oddly downplayed in favor of the distorted Zanj material. By the way, your usage above of the epithet "Negroes" is inconsistent with WP:Use modern language. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's according to who? The source does not say they were Zanj but slaves from Ethiopia. The word "Ahbash" or "habashi" is used to describe slaves in Yemen and its generaly means Ethiopians and those of east African origin. Whay would Yemenis go for central Africa for slaves where they can access its east easily? The slaves in Yemen and Arabia in general were of east African origin not Zanj. "the Ethiopian Axumites actually ruled Yemen for a number of centuries", oh yeah when was that? The only reason they were able to set a foot in the highlands was the religious division among Yemenis at the time. There was no Himyar any more as Joseph Dhu Nuwas was a warlord not a king  --يوسف حسين (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Ethiopian Kingdom of Axum's rule over Yemen is historically well-attested (e.g. ). I also just noticed your claim above that the Al-Akhdam are from the Horn. This is completely inaccurate. Besides the fact that the Al-Akhdam look nothing like Habesha and other Horn groups, they are also genetically different. The Tihama are likewise indigenous to Yemen, no different than the Mahra and myriad other similar swarthy local Yemeni groups. You are thus mistaken about the identity of those field slaves. They were most certainly not Habesha, nor does the link even claim that they were. What it states is that "the economy also boomed due to the ambitious agricultural development programs instituted by the sultans, who promoted massive cultivation of palms by the black slaves from Ethiopia". As already explained, those field slaves were Bantu/Nilotic people from the southern interior i.e. people known as the Zanj generally, and as Shankella in Ethiopia proper. Sometimes these slaves were referred to in the literature as "Abyssinian" because it was Abyssinian slave traders who transported them abroad in the first place, not because they were actually Habesha. This is similar to the "black slaves from Yemen" that Ibn Battuta wrote about (which, incidentally, I notice is not yet mentioned on that page) :


 * "'[...]they had for their soverign [sic.] a woman, who was married to her own Chief Justice, (p. 203). The queen had a number of soldiers in her army who had been recruited from Bengal, and were paid in rice. Black slaves from Yemen were also imported. Describing the customs of the people, Ibn Batuta has recorded that, 'The islanders are good people; they abstain from what is foul, and most of them bath twice a day, and properly too, on account of the extreme heat of the climate and the abundance of perspiration. They use a large quantity of scented oils, such as sandal wood oil, etc., and they annoint themselves with musk from Makdashan.'"


 * I sincerely hope we have an understanding now. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No unfortunately we don't. I never said Aksum did not exercise influence in Yemen but to what extent should be detailed and Munro Hay and others did that. I don't know the reason behind your edit when the background of the conflict is already detailed in the  article. it's confusing, your edit is just a repetition of what's already written you either remove my contribution or yours. the article is about Yemen not Ethiopia, and no one wants to read how great of a super power Aksum allegedly was. Abraha was an independent king who enjoyed the support of christian tribes because they simply shared his faith. it was not a nationalistic Ethiopian mission, king kaleb sent an army to help Christians in Yemen. so please keep it that way.


 * regarding al-akhdam and tihama and mahri arabs, i did not say anything regarding the Mahra in eastern Yemen but AL-Akhdam are of east african origin and the tihamis are of mixture origin as attested by their features. this source says the following :" a local Yemeni historian, Umara (d. 1174), reports that the Ziyadid princes collected 'a tribute imposed upon the ruler of the city of Dahlak comprising, among others, 1000 head of slaves whereof 500 were Abyssinian and Nubian female slaves.
 * The Yemeni historian 'Umara said the following : You must know that the Arabs of those lowlands (Tihama) have always married black slaves and have them for their mothers  therefore slaves and free men have the same black skin. So i'm afraid you are wrong, the tihama people are not indigenous to Yemen. I don't know why i come across the likes of you here, i don't whats yous guys deal with Yemen. in any case,  this source right here says the following  :" East African slaves were shipped across the red sea to Yemen, where they cultivated coffee beans in the northern highland".. so no we are not on the same page..--يوسف حسين (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Kaleb of Axum's rule is barely mentioned, and he wasn't the first Axumite ruler of the territory either. Your link also doesn't work. And the Shanqella live in East Africa, by the way (southern Ethiopia, to be precise). At any rate, it's too bad you're not familiar with genetics. Had you been, you would know better than to make half the claims you are making. Here's just one example: "These data suggest that the source population for the African ancestry of the Yemeni population is more similar to the contemporary Maasai population than either the Luhya or Yoruba" . The Maasai are Nilotes, like most Shanqella. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, my primary concern is the misidentification of Habesha and other related Horn populations with the Shanqella field slaves, the latter of whom did actually cultivate the palms. As long as this is understood and not misrepresented on the page, then I'm willing to let the matter of Kaleb and Axumite rule drop altogether. Otherwise, a more comprehensive solution may be required, including perhaps genetic material for additional clarification. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your link does not work. I don't know what you mean by territory but read the part about the alliance between Himyar and Aksum against Sheba/Saba .yeah i'm not an expert on genetics, and not a lot of people are familiar or able to tell the difference really. I don't care if they are Bantu/shanquella/massai/ or whatever, they are east African and i'm sticking to the sources. --يوسف حسين (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * why did you remove this sentence ;"The Ziyadid monarchs lost effective power after 989, or even earlier than that. Meanwhile a succession of black slaves held real power in the Tihama from Hali to Aden eventually establishing the Najahid dynasty in 1022"? --يوسف حسين (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well now, that's not very reasonable. You ask others to acknowledge that the Tihama and Al-Akhdam are distinct from other Yemenis (when in reality, only the Akhdam are somewhat, not the Tihama), but refuse to extend that same courtesy to others, even when you were shown that the extraneous DNA in the general Yemeni population is actually Maasai (Nilote/Shanqella)-related. I believe we had an earlier conversation on this same issue too and reached a mutual understanding Kendite. It went a little something like this :
 * The small minority you mentioned does not exist in Yemen even if they do there are no statistics. As mater of fact the majority of them resides in neighboring Oman. I provided a source specigically mentions that there are 5% of the population of Ethiopian/east African origin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendite (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another thing a tribesman does not need to live in a rural area. 85% of the population is of a tribal origin and play a major rule in shaping the political map of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendite (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, your link was on Al-Akhdam, not Ethiopians. It also does not indicate that 5% of Yemen's population is of Ethiopian origin. What it does say, among other things, is that "the popular notion that the Akhdam are descendants of Ethiopian oppressors appears to be a myth, said Hamud al-Awdi, a professor of sociology at Sana University." The fact is, Al-Akhdam are thought to be either descendants of Nilotic Sudanese who arrived with the Abyssinian army when it occupied Yemen (hence, why they are sometimes mislabeled "Ethiopian"), or of Veddoid/Negrito origin. Veddoid seems most likely here based on their short stature, Negrito-like physical appearance, and especially their high incidence of the sickle cell trait (which Abyssinians don't have). This is already explained on the Akhdam article. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry i gave you the wrong link, here is another link it says they are about 5%.
 * You are right it could be a myth but it is still not clear and they look African for the most past. The lineage between them and south Asians groups could be a result of intermarriage.


 * Never mind me i think you are right but about the 5% here is the link for that . Thank you
 * The link says that Al-Akhdam constitute 5% of Yemen's population, not Ethiopians. The Akhdam do have facial features, stature and general appearance quite unlike both Abyssinians and other Yemenis, but fairly similar to Negritos (who aren't from Africa). But anyway, glad to hear this is resolved. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Tihama indeed share some ties with populations in the Horn (and the Nile Valley), but perhaps not in the way that you had expected : "The most frequent haplotype in west coastal Yemen is 16126–16362, which is found not only in the Ethiopian highlands but also in Somalia, lower Egypt and at especially high frequency in the Nubians. The Tihama share some West Eurasian haplotypes with Africans, eg J and K with Ethiopians, Somali, and Egyptians." Middayexpress (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it needs a lot of work to tell the difference between a Shanquela and a massai or whatever but i'm pretty sure it would be much easier to tell the difference between Sadiq al-Ahmar and al-Akhdam, who are "somewhat" different according to you! yeah i do remember you now but the new york times article does not say anything about them being nilotic or whatever and non of your links work. the discussion is not about akhdam (who are not slaves) is about your edits and the sources provided in the article, the sources are discussing Yemen's history and are not making any of the nonsense you are showing me here. I will add a link to Slavery in Ethiopia and you can make whatever distinctions you want there. I don't understand these numbers and i can't tell how they are relevant. Those slaves came from a territory that is part of Ethiopia, they are part of Ethiopia's native population therefore, there is nothing wrong or misleading about calling the slaves Ethiopians regardless of their tribal or ethnic affiliation. --يوسف حسين (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured you'd remember me now :) You quite frankly have strange notions on who the Yemeni people are, going as far as to insinuate that the Tihama are from the Horn region. The Akhdam, though, admittedly aren't typical (not sure why you felt the need to compare them to that one politician, though). If we are disussing the Al-Akhdham now it's because you brought them up. You claimed above that "large numbers of black slaves were brought from the horn of africa, they and all Tihami Arabs who intermarried with them are called al-Akhdam" -- an absurd statement on a number of levels, which the link in any event doesn't assert. Bottom line, the phrase "blacks from East Africa" is too open-ended and vague. It may give readers the wrong impression that those field slaves were something other than the Shanqella/Nilotes they in reality were (as Yemeni DNA itself readily shows). This is certain since you yourself originally insisted as much. Unless you deliberately want readers to believe that those slaves were Habesha et al. -- the latter of whom are Afro-Asiatic groups, just like most Yemenis -- the exact identity of those field slaves must be specified. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No i do not a Yemeni is anyone who holds that country citizenship. What i said above is the truth, large number of slaves came from ethiopia, i don't know their ethnic affiliation but they certainly came from there. There are noticeable differences between northern highland population and the people of Tihama, the highlanders and the zaydi imams look down to them and did not consider them arabs. i compared al-akhdam to the head of the largest tribal confederation in yemen because you said that the al-akhdam and tihamis are "somewhat" different which is totally false. the highlanders make the majority of Yemen's population. I do not know what "Yemeni DNA" shows this source right here says the following : Often the Akhdam were dismissively described as from ethiopia (men al-habash)  .  and this source says  ; according to popular belief, akhdam origin date back to Ethiopians who arrive to southern Arabia in the sixth century and this source  makes a similar statement: According to the most popular account, they are the descendants of Ethiopian invaders from the sixth century, forced ever since into the performance of menial jobs, such as sweeping and shoe-making...The Akhdam are Arabic-speaking Muslims, same as the rest of the population. They do not belong to any of the three main Arab tribes, however, that make up traditional Yemeni society.  i looked up their DNA links and all i found was blogs. As i said, the sources do not distinguish so you can add a link to Slavery in Ethiopia in the article.--يوسف حسين (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * i just added a link to Slavery in Ethiopia it right here --يوسف حسين (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit was quite pov; the passage in the source doesn't even mention Ethiopia specifically but rather East Africa generally. Remarkable. The actual affinities and provenance of the Al-Akhdam were also already explained to you Kendite: "Al-Akhdam are thought to be either descendants of Nilotic Sudanese who arrived with the Abyssinian army when it occupied Yemen (hence, why they are sometimes mislabeled "Ethiopian"), or of Veddoid/Negrito origin. Veddoid seems most likely here based on their short stature, Negrito-like physical appearance, and especially their high incidence of the sickle cell trait (which Abyssinians don't have). This is already explained on the Akhdam article." That's actual biology, not speculation/wishful-thinking . Just like the Maasai/Shanqalla affinities of the Yemeni's extraneous DNA. Middayexpress (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, the source explicitly mentions Ethiopia . the link you provided is detailing al-akhdam origin but did not exclude the possibility that they might be of Ethiopian origin, and most importantly did not say slaves were not imported from Africa to Yemen. He said al-akhdam are not slaves which is true they are more like an outcast class, slaves however came from Ethiopia.--يوسف حسين (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nah, you're mistaken. The passage in question on cultivation of the palms only mentions East Africa in general. The study also clearly states that the Al-Akhdam aren't derived from the Horn's Afro-Asiatic peoples since they have very high frequencies of the sickle cell trait, which is of course absent from said Afro-Asiatic peoples. It's almost as though you personally wish that the Akhdam were Abyssinians. But alas, their biology and physical features are completley different. Middayexpress (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No here is what it says :" the sultan who promoted the massive cultivation of palms by the black slaves from Ethiopia" read it again please. . No i do not wish anything i'm just sticking to what the sources are saying, that the slaves are Ethiopians, according to many sources    --يوسف حسين (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Kendite, I'm already well aware that field slaves were shipped from Ethiopia (by Ethiopian rulers, no less). And those field slaves (as opposed to concubines) were specifically Shanqella/Barya. That said, it's by now unfortunately quite clear that you do wish those slaves were Afro-Asiatic Ethiopians. Hence, your reluctance to accept the fact that the overwhelming majority of field slaves both within Ethiopia and those shipped abroad were Shanqella/bariya (which literally means "slave", as the link above notes). This historic reality is preserved in the general Yemeni population's own genes; it's not mere speculation. Middayexpress (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you stop calling that? It's Yousef that was my tribe name. All sources do not say slaves from Ethiopia but use the phrase  Ethiopian slaves . I do not wish anything or want the slaves to be from a specific place or ethnic background, i want a SOURCE not anything to satisfy your imaginary pride. "The link above" does not show anything with regard to Yemen at all! Nothing in here whatsoever is backing up your claim --يوسف حسين (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had a look again at the first link, and it does mention Ethiopia. However, it's clearly referring to the Shanqella/Barya, as this link notes. Middayexpress (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your source does not mention Yemen!--يوسف حسين (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It discusses the institution of slavery in Ethiopia, where the slaves were shipped from to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ok i don't even know why i spent so much time on this. i will mention that they came from ethiopia, and than add their ethnic affiliation as you wrote it.--يوسف حسين (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You did not do that, though. Instead, you kept the vague racial phrase "blacks from Ethiopia" (which, inidentally, is especially odd on Yemen of all wiki pages since the territory of course has linguistic, cultural and genetic ties with the Horn), when I clearly stated that this should be replaced with the more specific Nilotic/Shanqella. You also indicated that "most" of the field slaves who cultivated the palms were Nilotic. The reality is, the field slaves in general were Nilotic/Shanqella as the link notes, not just "most" of them. You also reverted the Axumite material for what must be the fifth or sixth time. I did agree that it could be removed, but only under the condition that the field slave issue is resolved. Anyway I've fixed the phrase now; that should resolve it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what, there is no source explicitly backing your claim. The only reason i decided to do what i did is because i got tired of arguing with the likes of you, but it's all clear now, you think the phrase "blacks from Ethiopia" is racist and odd because Yemen has cultural and LINGUISTIC ties with Africans on the other side. I don't know what linguistic ties Yemen has with east Africans but it is not racist to call black people black. Ask any Somalian who have been to Yemen, if he thinks Yemenis have cultural, linguistic ties with him.. Just because you think it's odd does not justify your edit, which is clearly based on personal thoughts and conclusions.
 * The Rasulid sultans were of Turkmen ancestry hence they were not black i can guarantee you that, they were slave owners who brought slaves from Africa like the rest of the world did, so it's not racist or odd to describe the slaves as black because they simply were.
 * As for the "Axumite material", it's really not up to you, the article is about Yemen not king kalab or how great aksum allegedly was. the reader does not want to know that kaleb retired or what happened to aksum while he is reading an article about Yemen.. I strongly advice you and the rest of east Africans here, to stop think of yemen as part your racial and geographical unit--يوسف حسين (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, this is one theory and it's not yet a proven fact. I do not know if it is widely accepted in the scientific community. Not a lot of genetic studies were conducted in Yemen--يوسف حسين (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems I have struck a nerve... First, you don't know anything about my ethnic background much less that of the other posters here since we of course never disclosed that to you, "Yousef". Second, the link I posted explicitly states that the field slaves in Yemen were Nilotic. This in any event is the only actual fact that is also supported by DNA -- the extraneous DNA in the general Yemeni population is Maasai-affiliated, who are a Nilotic people, just like the Shanqella. Third, you are not in a position to tell me or any of the others here what to do, let alone what general readers think (see WP:THREAT). Fourth, the Afro-Asiatic Yemeni population's ties with the Afro-Asiatic Horn populations on the other side of the Red Sea are indelible. This evidently troubles you for some reason, but it doesn't really matter because it is first and foremost based in biology (e.g. ). Lastly, I strongly recommend you also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:CIV policy and basic wiki-etiquette. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't struck any nerve just like you did not provide a source to justify your edit. The source you provided is talking about slavery in Ethiopia in general and does not specifically say that the slaves imported by the rasulid king were Nilotic, all the sources say they were either from Ethiopia or Ethiopian slaves, it does not say that that all slaves in Yemen came from Nilotic background. I do not understand this sentence "the extraneous DNA in the general Yemeni population is..", are you saying the Yemeni public are "massai" or whatever? are you for real? No DNA test was conducted to reveal that the former slave population in Yemem (slavery was abolished in 1962) are Massai people, you just came up with that on your own! You removed a sentence stating that the Najahid dynasty in Tihama was established by black Ethiopian slaves for no apparent reason, just to entertain your own pride. I did not threat you i said it's not up to you to decided what should be or shouldn't be in the article, especially when the data it's pointless. It does not trouble me or anything, yemenis have had trade links with Africans and Indians for thousands of years, this right here proves nothing and most importantly it is a trivial matter because nobody cares. I strongly advice you again to find other interests to occupy your day and stop think of Yemen as part pf your racial or cultural unit, because it's not and it's quite irritating.  if the racial make up of Yemenis really matter to you, it should be added in the demographics section but just so you know, there aren't reliable data for such topic--يوسف حسين (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I obviously did strike a nerve or you wouldn't have blown a gasket like that, WP:SCREAMed, gotten personal, and made wild, frivolous threats. You've also gotten basic facts wrong. What I actually removed was an unsourced statement that "meanwhile a succession of black slaves held real power in the Tihama from Hali to Aden eventually establishing the Najahid dynasty in 1022." Further, the link I alluded to in my earlier comment on the actual Nilotic identity of the field slaves in Yemen was this one ("the buffer area included the old port Tajura, which was the slave centre from where all slaves captured from Sudan and the southern Nilotic provinces were sold to Yemen, Arabia and Persia"). You also are indeed clearly disturbed by the fact that the Afro-Asiatic groups in Yemen share genetic ties with the adjacent Afro-Asiatic groups in the Horn. If this were genuinely a "trivial matter" to you, you wouldn't have twice now given me "strong advice" to "occupy your day and stop think of Yemen as part pf your racial or cultural unit" simply based on my having pointed out this reality. FYI, I'm only repeating what the genetic data actually shows; so if you're upset about it, it's the researchers themselves you should take it up with. Lastly, the fact that the extraneous DNA (that means admixture) in the general Yemeni population is affiliated with the Nilotic Maasai is likewise well established. I only pointed this out for your own edification i.e. so that you may understand that there's now actual DNA evidence confirming that the field slaves in Yemen were Shanqella/Nilotic. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings; and frankly, I don't see why this is something to get upset over. By the way, the Najahid rulers came from one specific group in Ethiopia, the Jazali. The vague "black slaves from Ethiopia" is thus also unnecessary and too open-ended. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Typical! to "educate me" you say? man you guys and your phony ridiculous pride. I did not threat you, and i did not scream because i'm writing to you not talking, you know? anyway, why did you remove that sentence? what was so annoying about it? should i have wrote that the Najahid were Nilotic/massaya/habaya/crapaya instead of simply saying they were black slaves? you removed the fact that they were owned by the Ziyadid and jumped on to saying they were Jazaali or Jazili, does being a "Jazili" contradict being simply Ethiopian or black? it should be mentioned that they saved the Ziyadid dynasty from total collapse and from 989 to 1022, they were the true rulers of that kingdom before officially establishing their own state.


 * Again, the sentence in the yemen article is about the rasulid importation of slaves, your source does not speak of that, it mentions slavery in Ethiopia in general and does not mention any dates. I honestly do not know what was the ethnic/tribal link of those slaves and it is not proper to mention their tribal affiliation in an article about Yemen. all the sources i provided are about Yemen and they do not focus on the slaves ethnic origin either, because it does not matter since the book or article is about a different topic. this is why i told you above to put a link to Slavery in Ethiopia instead of writing that the slaves brought to Yemen were such and such, it is just undue weight. they were Ethiopians that's the end of discussion, being nilotic, massaya or whatever does not strip you from your Ethiopian identity.
 * regarding genetics, again why would i mention that in an article or a section about Yemen's history (assuming it's true)? first of all you did not provide any data to "educate me" you are just repeating your own crap with all due respect. what irritate me sir is how you and others relentlessly trying to connect Yemen's culture and identity to yours, that's it. I do not hate anyone and i know that Yemen has historical relations with Ethiopia and India, a lot of traders from eastern and southern Yemen settled in east africa, Hyderabad in india and south east Asia as well. Nevertheless, they have their own identity, culture and history that absolutely different than yours, trying to steal their heritage by claiming biblical sheba, ignoring all archaeological evidence and studies is just another case with you guys. You " did not hurt my feelings" but you guys have a way of getting under someone's skin really. The fact that you are so preoccupied to prove some genetic link to east Africa or Massai people (according to your nonsense) proves that, it's not just stupid but quite aggravating. because you are not the first African person or Africa affiliated i encounter trying to classify Yemenis racially and fail at it miserably. --يوسف حسين (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
{unblock |I did not use multiple accounts. Kendite was my user name in arabic wiki project which is where i usually contribute although i do contribute here from time to time. I changed my user name from "kendite" to the current sometime last year so the user name kendite is not currently active in the Arabic wiki project. I used to log in here using the "kendite" account but sometime i forget to log out from "يوسف حسين" but i realized that it's pointless to log in and out every time i want to make an edit on English wiki project. it's been over a year since i logged in using the "kendite" account and i have never claimed to be a different person or denied the fact that "kendite" was my previous user name. I have never used the "kendite" account as a sockpuppet to mislead other editors or create problematic edits simply because it has been over a year since i logged in using that account. I simply changed my name in the Arabic wiki project and forgot to log out when editing here. I don't know if this is enough to unblock me and it does not matter if it's just for another two days, i'm not really a big contributor to the English wiki project. But i just do not want the wiki community to get the wrong idea of what i am doing here --يوسف حسين (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}}

Edit warring at Yemen
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Yemen. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The full report of this case was at WP:AN3, and can be viewed at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=593834764#User:.D9.8A.D9.88.D8.B3.D9.81_.D8.AD.D8.B3.D9.8A.D9.86_reported_by_User:Middayexpress_.28Result:_48_hours.29 this permanent link]. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This block can be lifted if you will agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting again at Yemen. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what i said, i was and still always willing to discuss anything with any editor, but i hope that discussions will receive some attention by admins in the future. Next time i will notify an admin to monitor any discussion that i feel have reached a dead end--يوسف حسين (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If three editors and an admin are telling you in both words and actions that the edit is fine while yours isn't (as is the situation here), then that's not a "dead-end". That's consensus against your edit. Per WP:TENDENTIOUS, you'll just have to learn to accept that rather than WP:ADMINSHOP. Middayexpress (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No admin had said that your edits are fine and mine are not, one preferred your friend's because he thought the grammar was better but he did not give an opinion regarding the material accuracy. My edits were not bias in any shape or form because they were properly sourced now unless there is another source to debunk mine, bring it to the table instead of accusing me of being biased. I am not planing on "Admin shopping" i was referring to Dispute_resolution. Just to see what i am dealing with here  --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok i see my request was declined. It's fine next time i will resort to the talk page. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late reply; I have been busy lately. "Yousef" it appear that your edits are actually quite bias since you have a problem with "us Africans" and Afrocentrism; which is clearly shown in | the message you sent me, and in many of your other edits. As for sources that debunk your edit there are many that do just that. Hence my initial | "not widely viewed as such" edit summary; which you said I gave no coherent reason to. Since this is still being discussed by historians and archaeologists and that we are only editors and not historians it does not give us the right to decided where something took place. For the admin that reverted, they did "prefer" my edit over yours (not just for grammar) and did give a response to your edit (not to your source because it is said in the book), since you had a problem with | us "being" Afrocentric (and Afrocentrism in general) it was | not a justified reason to re-add it.


 * Since you brought up my removal of an image, I would like to inform you that the image has nothing to do with Sheba (so how could my "Afrocentrism" be the reason for it?) nor the Sabeans, but rather just | "Art from Ancient Yemen". The image is also not sourced since it's a "own work".
 * uh well, the Sabaeans existed in Yemen, so it is pretty logical that it is categorized as art from ancient Yemen because the Sabaeans are part of ancient Yemen history. I did not understand your reasoning here. --يوسف حسين (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The only reason behind his edit is the baseless and unfounded belief that Sheba was an African civilization. Why else would he remove that sentence? He removed a picture from the ancient history section for the same exact reason", what are you talking and where did you get all of it? You never seen my edits before on Wikipedia, know who I am, nor know what my heritage and yet you jump to the conclusion that I am "African", a "pan Africanist", and "Afrocentric"? That clearly shows that you have a problem with that people that disagree with you and serious issue with people that are any of the three! I would greatly appreciate it if you would not speak for me like you just did now.


 * Also were did "admin Ed Johnson" say we identify as "pan Africanist"? If your referring to EdJohnston he said no such thing, but rather "| he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss.", whom "he" is actually you. It appears that this really is a theory of yours. AcidSnow (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to keep the discussion about the edits please, that case as you can see i closed. I know what admin ed johnson meant and i still stick by my "theory". However, I will see where will the discussions lead us--يوسف حسين (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Yemen, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Middayexpress (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A complaint at WP:AN3 mentions you
Please see WP:AN3. It is claimed that you have been edit warring at Yemen. If the assertion is valid then you've already broken the WP:3RR rule and are at risk of being blocked. You may respond to the complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Middayexpress (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring: Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you AcidSnow (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring, as you did at Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that there have been an alarming number of reports on you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, some of which have not been closed. I have seriously considered combining them into one longer block, but instead I have decided to just give you a block for 48 hours, which is what I would have done had there been only the one case I have referred to since your previous block. However, if you continue to edit war on numerous articles, you may well be blocked for considerably longer next time, and it may not be long before you are blocked indefinitely. Please do not edit war. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well i do not think that's fair. Yes i have been reported several times by the same people. I admit that i was engaged in edit warring in Yemen and the Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic but if you take a closer look at their contributions you would realize that they were edit warring themselves. They attempted to evade detection by editing over a long period of time (one day maximum), and i know that this constitute disruptive editing. They first accused me of having multiple accounts by placing numerous false warnings on my main and talk page, they failed to cite sources to push their minority point of view. They were WP:TEND on a number of articles, deleting properly cited information to push their minority point of view especially user Midday express  who have been reported before on his edits in Yemen's related articles. That user is engaged in original research and is unwilling to reach census on any article, Because i objected his editing, he and his groupies accused me of a "racial overtone". He repeatedly disregarded my explanations for the edits i make. I even deleted some passages he objected from the articles although they were in the books i cited, because i did not want to prolong the discussion. I can give you specific examples if you want. I am not familiar with reporting editors process but it's likely that i will resort to that very soon. I am not objecting this block i was indeed engaged in edit warring but i do not think you telling that i could be banned from editing is fair, and you have to observe and monitor their edits as well.--يوسف حسين (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jazan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)