User talk:84.219.188.51

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&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.

Hello Anonymous user 84.219.188.51 (that doses not have an account), Why can't you just read the Talk Page for Cushitic peoples (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cushitic_peoples&action=history) instead of just deleting factual information. Next time lets have a civilized constructive discussion about this, instead of unilaterally reverting constructive edits, inciting a so-called edit-war, and scapegoating me for it.

Here is an excerpt from the Talk Page (this is a courtesy; from now on please write on the Talk Page):

" I welcome all constructive good-faith feedback as to how I can improve the article, considering this is my first making of one. MusIbr (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Don’t forget to mention Habesha people, most of them speak Ethiosemitic languages but are genetically and culturally Cushitic people’s (for some socio-political reasons some people try to play down the similarities, and it is now creeping into academia). HoAHabesha (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello MusIbr, I actually agree with most of your edits. Most of the time on Wikipedia, when I add indigenous Horn African (Ethiopian, etc.) sources even from real journals, people delete them and give Western sources more of a representation than indigenous sources. Thank you for clarifying many of the things that I had mentioned. No offense but, when I saw the notifications for the article, I was afraid that every integral piece of information that I had contributed from the sources would have been deleted. But instead I like the new edits, they clarify things much better and represent indigenous sources as well (I’ve had a hard time finding articles like that on Wikipedia about Horn Africans). This may be a first. Keep on the good work. HoAHabesha (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello agin MusIbr, I just want to make this clear, so we can understand. I hadn’t said that Ethiosemitic language speakers are synonymous with Cushitic language speaks, what I was trying to say was that even if Ethiosemitic language speakers don’t Cushitic languages, they are genetically speaking a sub-group of Cushitic peoples in contrast to Arabs as some people would say. It’s equivalent to what you yourself said about how some Cushitic peoples in Sudan transitiond into speaking Nilo-Saharan languages like Nubian, and other languages like Arabic. HoAHabesha (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely, that if Nubians are represented here owing to their Cushitic heritage so should Ethiosemites. I wouldve done so myself but I thought some might take offense at that. I am actually about to post a Genetics section that underlines this, what some geneticists have called the "Ethio-Somali" component which is shared autosomal ancestry between both groups that make up a large amount of their collective genome. Combine the linguistic proof and genetic proof and what you're saying is hard to refute. Cheers! MusIbr (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC) That’s true. Oh and be careful when talking about the genetics of Horn Africans/Cushites/Nilo-Cushitic peoples because mainstream commercial Ancestry DNA tests have a tendency of miss representing these (Cushitic and surprisingly even Niolitic) groups unique genetic markers as those of a biracial Southeast Bantu (Southeastern Africa) and Arab (Middles Eastern) person. Most modern (excluding most 1890’s biased anthropologists) well known academics haven’t addressed this discrepancy. On the other hand some not well known but professional genesisitst and other scholars have taken up the mantel and have been writing blogs using data evidence and logic to explain the situation.

I’ll give you 2 links to blogs, the first one is factually but is more antidotal, the second one has a lot of data. People should read both but the first one gives a much better context for the situation for people to understand. Technically speaking, because both of these are blogs, Wikipedia regulations and bureaucracy will not let us use it as a source, even though this is the closest thing to a reputable non-biased source that is humanly possible to find on Horn African people. —-> HoAHabesha (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC) 1.) In Response To The Question: “Are Somalis a combination between Bantus and Arabs/Caucasians/non-Africans?” (Ancestry/Ethnicity Estimate DNA Testing Issues for Nilo-Cushitic/Horn African peoples, Part 1). — https://medium.com/@habeshaunion/in-response-to-the-question-are-somalis-horn-africans-northeast-africans-eritreans-2be71f54a763

2.) Tracing African Roots: North & East African Results. — https://tracingafricanroots.com/ancestrydna/african-results/north-east-african-results/

HoAHabesha (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC) "

Nomination of Cushitic peoples for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cushitic peoples, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Cushitic peoples until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)