User talk:Baboon43/Archive 1

Ok
....
 * would you like me to set up automatic archiving of your talkpage for you ? keeps it nice and tidy... Penyulap  ☏  05:54, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * yes thx Baboon43 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Wifione  Message 16:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abadir Umar Ar-Rida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harari (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) 10:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Input
Hi Baboon43. As one of the more active and knowledgeable contributors on the Horn of Africa articles, I was wondering if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at the Somalis in the United Kingdom article? An editor has added some material related to race that has been a bone of contention. Specifics can be found here. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I dont know much about this subject to weigh in on it. Baboon43 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Left a response there. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk)


 * We are in agreement. The section is undue, misleading and unimportant. An admin said that we could make edits to the page once consensus has been formed, so please feel free to remove it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the applicability of the "Black British" categories to Horn African pages. The user attempted to add such a category to the Somalis in the United Kingdom, Category:British people of Somali descent, and other Horn African pages/bios, arguing that Somali, Ethiopian and Eritrean immigrants in Britain are and self-identify as "Black British". On this basis, he has also added some Somali material to the "Black British" article. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Baboon43. Did you get a chance to look at the post? What do you think? Are we in agreement on this point as well? Please leave your reply there. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, left a reply there. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Harari
By the way, how do you feel about a collage of notable Hararis? Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * notable collage sounds good. Baboon43 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so far we have Abdullah al-Harari and Sheikh Abadir Umar ar-Rida. The Sheikh Abadir pic seems to be fair use, though, so I've placed them individually in the infobox until we can find a non-copyrighted or public domain example for a collage. In the meantime, can you think of any other notables that might fit? At least four is the ideal minimum. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * there's pics of amir abdullahi (last king of harar) online Baboon43 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you link to one or some of them? Middayexpress (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * couldnt find a close up though & this one is a drawing (last pic at the very bottom)  Baboon43 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding ongoing disputes in regard to content and conduct. The thread is Accusations of extremism.The discussion is about the topic Barelvi. Thank you. —MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cooperating
So things are ok now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey man, I replied on my talk page for now, but in the future could you post messages like this on the talk page for the article? If the other user isn't paying attention, you could just message them on their talk page mentioning that there is a discussion on such-and-such talk page. I didn't know what you were talking about at first so it took me a minute to figure it out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * i thought it wouldnt be a problem since you post on my talk page. Baboon43 (talk)
 * It's not a problem, what I'm saying is you can post it on the talk page for that article and then post on my talk page to remind me. When you started off the bat like that, I was immediately sure what you were talking about because I edited a lot of articles yesterday. It's not a big deal, just a suggestion. Also, more than just you and I might be interested in the discussion, hence the benefit of posting it on the talk page for the relevant article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I opened a discussion on the talk page for the Albani article. Bring whatever sources you can and let's work out a new consensus there. As it is, the article has very few reliable sources so anything we can bring will help. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * actually i would have opened a discussion on the talk page sooner if i intended on dwelling on the albani issue.my intention was to put my point across your edit on his article that is all..i would prefer to develop other articles then albanis at the moment but maybe sometime in the future. Baboon43 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahbashism campaign
There was a request for further discussion, specifically an RfC on that page. I don't know how comfortable you would be with me acting in the role of Third opinion, or if you'd like to go directly to RfC. But speaking as someone who knows little about the subject from the outside looking in, its a contentious article which could benefit from multiple comments. Think of it this way: if you, McKhan and all others interested can sort out that conflict smoothly, your time will be freed up to move on to other articles and projects. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RFC is fine. Baboon43 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to stifle you, OK? If I really didn't like you personally, I wouldn't respond to you at all. I think that overall, you're an active editor who has made many good contributions to this site. I'm not your enemy and I don't want to be. Please understand, I'm only trying to mediate because I see the discussion headed in a direction that might end with nobody's views being heard. I'm trying to help you, even if we disagree sometimes. This is why I respond even here on your personal page. Please understand that I say what I say as a respectful editor towards a peer, not as someone who just wants to battle someone else over content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Assalamoalaikum!There is a discussion going on here and I have been accused of Personal Attacks ,as you have worked on Barelvi Page and have engaged in long discussions your views regarding the behavior of MezzoMezzo is relevant.Thanks. Shabiha  (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarkston (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) 11:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work
Nice one over on the Deobandi article. I remember initially not knowing what the GEE was when you mentioned it once. Then I found it and started using it on the biographies for some sheikhs, and somebody randomly told me what a Wikipedia fork is. Good on you for finding a valid source for the same material though. See. I'm not here to fight you, man. I just want Wikipedia to be better, even if I'm wrong sometimes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sufi-Salafi relations
I request you to kindly help me neutralizing Sufi-Salafi relations.Thanks. Shabiha (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thats a large article if i get the time, sure. Baboon43 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just help me in discussion on its deletion entry page and try to edit initial headings. Shabiha (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't need 2 templates
Can you remove one the two templates? They both say the same thing. Thats my main problem. It makes it unaesthetic and awkward.Sopher99 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * both are separate types of templates. Baboon43 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)"

"This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. "

See. I Suggest taking away the top one, as the bottom one talks in specific of undue weight/ungiven weight such as whether or not something should be included in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated Sopher99 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 Shabiha (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Salafi Article
I have tried to remove some very biased non neutral POv sources from the Salafi Article.I am discussing one by one on its talk page.The Article is full of POv and does not at all present neutral picture.It has been written from Salafist view points.Your objective and to the point opinion may help in reaching consensus. Shabiha (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC input needed
Hi my friend.Input would be appreciated at an RfC and also at an RfC .Please comment. Shabiha  (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash
You are now on 3RR on this article, further edit warring will lead to a report at ANEW. The source most certainly does say what McKhan has added. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * that is wp synthesis you cant combine two sources. Baboon43 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SYNTH again, two sources same author. Neither are being combined to create something not present in either source, it is not a synth at all. If I were you I would let this one go. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You
Sure,I will try to add it on other pages.Any way you can also add it on relevant pages.Sunnibarelvi (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

See Saladin/Talk
see subject/headline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisan.Cavdarli (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Salaam! There is discussion regarding Barelvi and other pages here at ANI.You might like to comment.Msoamu (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thnx for your efforts
Thank you for your proposal to give me a second chance at ANI. Though I am Banned from editing Wikipedian Articles of religious nature Kindly continue your great efforts on those pages for the sake of neutrality.Msoamu (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * sure but it will take a while before i begin to scan through the pages. Baboon43 (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Baboon43. Heads up on the Rageh Omaar and Nadifa Mohamed pages. Same cat issue/user as last time. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * looks like its solved right?? Baboon43 (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting
Hi Baboon43, I have noticed that you kept reverting the "Habesha Page" to a page which had a misleading information.Please provide the reasons why you are doing it so,Thank you. Johnnyleepeter (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"The whole semitic speakers being habesha are incorrect..habesha is exclusively for amhara tigres..... "These came from three main groups: the Amhara, the Tigre (the Habash or Habesha)---both of which speak related Semitic languages and represent the Ethiopian Christian tradition""

Well, The description that you wrote perfectly describes Ethnic Gurage, therefore Gurage must be added in the article.It had never been doubted. Guragigna is related to Amharic and Tigringa languages.It can NOT be exclusively to Amhara, Tigre. There are also many sources that support my Argument.Don't cut out parts, even the source that you used says "Shoans" which includes Gurage. Gurage doesn't belong to "southern" that should be very clear.I can't argue about the other ethnics that were mentioned in the "Habesha Article" because i don't have enough information.it would also be nice if you tell me if you are Ethiopian,so that i won't have to explain some basic staffs that many Ethiopians know.Thank you.Johnnyleepeter (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole semitic speakers being habesha are incorrect..habesha is exclusively for amhara tigres..... "These came from three main groups: the Amhara, the Tigre (the Habash or Habesha)---both of which speak related Semitic languages and represent the Ethiopian Christian tradition" [1] Baboon43 (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"its not about relation to the language..the habesha (abyssinian) refers to the amhara and tigray & then broadly anyone in the horn..you said the above description fits perfectly with ethnic gurage when that is incorrect..the gurage dont represent ethiopian christian tradition infact there's more muslims then christian gurages. im not from ethiopia but i have done enough research of that region.as explained "Habesha. A self-descriptive cultural definition derived from "Abyssinia", today applied to the members of the Tigrinya ethno-linguistic group, as well as Tigrinya- and Amharic-speaking Chritstians in Ethiopia"."

Baboon43 stop giving a misleading information,don't revert it back for no reason.You are basically saying that Habesha means Christian,which is wrong if that's what Habesha is then Tigray and Amhara Muslims are not habesha and the whole Christians of the world would be Habesha therefore Habesha does NOT mean Christian, Habesha is NOT a religion.You are confusing what Habesha is in the first place, Habesha have a lot to do with language,even the source that you provided says that "Tigrinya- and Amharic-SPEAKING" which means it is in relation to the language. Habesha are the ethnics of Ethoipia/Eritrea that have Axumite ancestry.You can't say Tigray are Habesha and then Gurage is not Habesha when the origin of Gurage itself is the Axumite empire."Amhara, Tigrais, and Gurages Speak semetic languages and Are considered to be descendants of Southern Arabian Conquerors,who trace their Ancestry back to Ancient (Queen of Sheba,) Moses and King Solomon.Whereas Tigrais still live in the area of the Ancient Aksum kingdom, the Amharas and Gurages have expanded inland.The Semitic-speaking Axumites, or Habash sometimes Amharic~ Abesha, አበሻ `ābešā; (Abyssinians), had their capital city, Aksum,In the western part of the province of Tigray."[1 ]Johnnyleepeter (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "gurage are not descendent from axumite empire"? Another source for " Amharas, Tigrais, and Gurages speak Semitic languages and are considered to be descendants of southern Arabian conquerors, who trace their ancestry back to Moses and King Solomon. Whereas Tigrais still live in the area of the ancient Aksum kingdom, the Amharas and Gurages have expanded inland."[2 ] "According to the historian Paul B. Henze, their origins are explained by traditions of a military expedition to the south during the last years of the Aksumite Empire, which left military colonies that eventually became isolated from both northern Ethiopia and each other."[3] Your argument is baseless and nonsense,so stop removing it.Johnnyleepeter (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"provide RS that states gurage are habesha" what an absurd statement is that? the "Habesha Page" says "The term Habesha (Ge'ez: ሐበሻ Ḥabaśā, Amharic (H)ābešā, Tigrinya: ? Ḥābešā; Arabic: الحبشة ‎ al-Ḥabašah) refers to the South Semitic-speaking group of peoples whose cultural, linguistic, and in certain cases, ancestral origins trace back to the Axumite Empire and the kingdom known as Dʿmt (usually vocalized Diʿamat)." Based on this statement habesha are the people that speak the south Semitic languages that are related and that trace back their ancestral origins back to the Axumite Empire so does Gurages speak a Semitic language (FYI from Geez very closely related to Amharic and Tigrinya) and also trace back their ancestry back to the Axumite empire; i have provided a source for that.This explains it well, just because its not worded exactly the way you want it, doesn't make your argument correct.you are contradicting with the definition of habesha on the article itself. Baboon43 you seem to have some kind of political agenda,what ever your reason is for Removing it; you haven't made a clear argument and you are distorting information.removing it again is unreasonable and it is vandalism. Johnnyleepeter (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

NOTICE: I had left a comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.Johnnyleepeter (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Baboon43
I wanted to make you aware that proposed solutions have been brought up, and there is a large amount of support regarding an indefinite block. I would highly recommend that you make a comment on the page, unless you're not opposed to the indef block being brought forward to the WP:AN.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, the above was a typo. It should have read "unless you're not opposed". I have fixed it.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for problems with edit warring and incivility, and for showing an unwillingness to change your behaviour. In a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=565837617#Block_proposal_of_Baboon43 discussion on the administrators' noticeboard], there was a consensus that this behaviour warranted a block of indefinite duration. However, the block may be lifted if you can convincingly demonstrate that you are willing to respect community norms, including but not limited to those on edit warring and civility. You may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

26 July 2013 (UTC)}}


 * Non Admin Comment : The reason "in order to file an appeal" isn't a valid unblock reason. The reasoning that you provide is your appeal. You don't need unblocked to make the appeal.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * actually there's an appeal board but i see here an admin can copy and paste it if i pursue one. uh no im requesting an unblock at the moment Baboon43 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've learned why you're blocked. Not in the hour that you've been blocked.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 04:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * dont post on my talk page. Baboon43 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43, given the consensus at AN, I doubt any single admin is willing to lift your block quickly. I suggest you appeal through WP:BASC instead. As part of your appeal, you may want to propose a voluntary avoidance of editing topics on Islam, at least for a while, because you seem to run into trouble on those. Also, try to use proper spelling. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43, you're blocked by the community because of the issues raised in the RFC/U. Indeed, if you had addressed all of those issues during the RFC, then you would not have ever become blocked. In order to formulate a block request that would pass a snowball's chance in being accepted, you would therefore need to line-by-line address every single issue that was raised in the RFC. As already noted, no individual admin will be able to unblock you because this is a community-imposed block. By the way, saying "the RFC/U was wrong" clearly is not going to help - the community has determined that everything in the RFC was 90%+ correct, and as such, valid. As per WP:GAB, you need to accept those issues, explain those issues, recognize the anti-community nature of those issues, and show the steps you'll take to ensure those issues will never (and I do mean never) happen again. (✉→BWilkins ←✎) 00:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * i dont recall those ani participants entirely "the community" seeing over half were canvassed thru the rfc and then again to ani..can you tell me where i have said the rfc is wrong?? note sockpuppets have begun to attack my articles on watchlist ex; Abdullah al-Harari. based on the rfc participation guideline, a line by line address is not necessary . ill request another unblock so i can address the so called "issues" at dispute resolution. can an admin also tell dusti to stop posting on my page since he still wont stop. Baboon43 (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. To be frank, I don't think you'll be unblocked in order to go to WP:DR, as others have said this is your chance at dispute resolution. If you want to be unblocked you have to convince the administrators by adressing the issues raised earlier here, not on some other page. The only thing that will eventually happen if you keep posting unblock requests similar to the ones you've done is that you will end up loosing your talkpage privileges. If you don't want to request unblocks here, you can try via WP:UTRS. Bjelleklang  -  talk 09:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * whats the use of talkpage privileges if i cant even edit an article? i want to address it at WP:DR because there's a much wider audience in that venue. where are you saying i should address the issues on my talk or in the unblock box? Baboon43 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We already went via WP:DR; that's what an WP:RFC/U is for, if you didn't notice. Check WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dispute resolution completed, it resulted in the community going to WP:AN to enact a community ban, the correct route to go per WP:CBAN. If you would take five minutes to actually read site policy, this would be clear to you already. You have been given an indefinite block per WP:INDEF. If you feel you should be unblocked for any reason, then as you have been told multiple times, take it to WP:UTRS. Asking for an unblock for the purposes of opening the discussion again with a "wider audience" simply comes off as an attempt to get around the block. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

open discussion
Who ever wnat know more about ahmed gurey go harar mosuem and check the correct history of the imam and his clan shekhal, shekal, also remember the name sheik abadir and the name fiqih omer and the shekal they are all same. Shafi mukhtar (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)