User talk:Zekenyan

Agreement

Okay, what's going on here? I've explained to you why the Argobba claims are unfounded and those sources are disputed and have no real evidence behind them and you agreed to come to a "compromise" as a result. I then see that you re-added the Argobba claim... What is going on? This is just getting disruptive. Awale-Abdi (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call Acidsnow to do anything and I don't know what you're talking about. If you have an issue with him then hash it out with him, for God's sake. You did agree to a compromise and it's visible on my page and now you're just edit warring again. This is becoming ridiculous, man. Awale-Abdi (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... Is that what he did? He edited your Adal edit? Okay, I was 100% willing to keep to our agreement cos I'm frankly VERY sick of this "warring" so sure; revert it back and I'll contact him about just leaving it alone. Awale-Abdi (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, in the future; stop assuming things about people. I had nothing to do with this and from where I stood you were shitting on a deal we had and I was frankly quite annoyed. If you have a problem with another editor; hash it out with them and not me. But I will talk to him if that will hold up our deal. Awale-Abdi (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the Adal etymology situation so all I saw was you suddenly editing the Walashma page so from where I stood; yeah, I assumed you'd broken our agreement. But hopefully things will be fine now and he'll heed what I left in the edit history section. I have his email and told him to just leave the page be as well. Trust me, I was quite pleased that we'd finally come to some form of a compromise, no intention of jeopardizing it. Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harar statistics

Let me review that source you shared, if it seems quite legit then we'll add it as a counter statistic in the Harar thread. The source I added was from a guy who actually went to Harar in 1854, he stayed there, walked the streets and so on then also even met the local Amir, various scholars and the like. He would've really known what he was talking about demographically as a result. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've reviewed the source and this seems like the "censuses" of different time-periods. Richard F. Burton showed up in 1854-1856 (oddly your source claims he showed up much later which is incorrect). Your source looks to be speaking of Harar's demographics after things like its annexing by the Khedivate of Egypt (1875-1885) so the two sources don't actually "counter" each other because your source is speaking of the demographics at a later date while the Richard F. Burton one is speaking of the demographics at an earlier date. Things might've arguably changed in the 21-31 years since Burton showed up as those were times of notable change, politically speaking.

Also, when the following is said: This representation continued even during the reign of Haile Sellassie for “every race and creed seemed to be represented here-Somalis, Oromos, Arabs, Egyptians, Danakil, Indians, Greeks and Armenians” as narrated by Geoffrey Harmsworth (1935:178), it's from a much much later date. Your source makes a mistake and claims it's from the early 19th century but it's actually the early 20th century, that's when Harmsworth showed up and also published his book.

So your sources speak of Harar's demographics at later dates than what I shared; after the "Turko-Egyptians", and later also Menelik, acquired the town. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benadiri debacle

I'm really quite baffled that I need re-iterate this again & again. Suppose a group in the far West China forms around a city/town and speaks a Turkic language and they're called "Wangzics" and they are genetically and in terms of known origins a mixture between Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Tajiks (google these populations if you're unfamiliar with them) then there's a group in Eastern China (around where Beijing is) who form around a town/city who speak a Sino-Tibetan language and these people are mostly Han Chinese, these people for this hypothetical's sake are called "Kwazu". Would you really go to the Wangzics page and list the "Kwazu" as "related" to them?! What on Earth do they have to do with each-other beyond being two populations formed around an "urban" settlement and now being part of the same "macro-region" (China in the hypothetical and the Horn in the case of Hararis and Benadiris)? If that's your criteria then list Medieval "Kilwans" as related to Hararis or Egyptians in Cairo as related to Hararis, they're fellow East Africans formed around an "urban" settlement, such a connection, huh?

There is no real relation between "Hararis" & "Benadiris". One is a Southern Somali coast population that's a mixture between Iranian, Arab, Somali & even South Asian settlers on the Southern Somali coast and speak Benadiri Somali (a Cushitic language) and the other is an Ethiopian Semitic speaking population that lives in a town in Eastern Hararghe. Beyond both of them being connected to Somalis in some way... What's the connection? It's ridiculous to keep posting that nonsense about them being of a similar formation (thousands of other populations worldwide are of "similar formation" ). No one would ever think to really associate the two because beyond their shared connection to Somalis and "urban" settler formation; there is no connection unless you want to go back to the pre-historic era where a tonne of Humans worldwide are "connected" in some way anyway. Please stop it with this completely absurd "debate".

As for Ingoman... He's an alright guy and a bit of a friend (we correspond via email sometimes) but I wouldn't take everything he says on any issue very seriously. The chap has a habit of often going off oral traditions too much rather than peer-reviewed papers, historical sources, etc. Notice that he rarely shares sources for what he says... He's still a voice to sometimes be listened to though and he's correct about Amharas (what he said is even supported by genetic studies on them). But in this case, all he said in respect to Hararis and Benadiris is the following:

"This is not unique to just Harar, the same situation exists in Mogadishu where Benadiri is spoken by everyone in Mogadishu regardless of their tribe."

He was making an example... He could've chosen any population anywhere in the world that is of a "similar formation" but he just chose "Benadiris" because they're from the Horn region too and probably because he's more familiar with them (Heck, we were both discussing Benadiris just a few days via email and they've definitely been an interest of his as far back as 2013). This is not a real connection. If you wish to connect Hararis to Benadiris then please go and find 100 other populations who amalgamated around a town/city and list them as related to Hararis as well. <- that's how absurd the connection you're making is.

Please leave the Harari and Benadiri pages alone (in respect to adding either group as "connected" to the other) and please do not message me again about this issue again. Thank you,Awale-Abdi (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But honestly, if it will get you to leave me alone on this issue... Add back the parts I removed in the Benadiri and Harari pages BUT I will accept this compromise under the condition that you will not add either ethnic group under the "related ethnic groups" sections of either of their pages... Not only I but many other editors will definitely raise their eye-brows at this because of what I explained to you above, and you will merely cause an unnecessary disturbance and "edit-wars". But keep out the text about being of a "similar formation". If you want to use that as your rationalization then as I said; add 100 other populations of a similar formation... These two groups have nothing to honestly do with each other but I find this whole debacle so incredulously irritable that if this compromise will make you leave this issue completely alone (i.e. never bringing it up with me again); so be it. Awale-Abdi (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darod ancestor

No, never heard such a claim before. Officially he's just thought to have been a Hashemite Arabian descended from Aqeel ibn Abi Talib but I do personally suspect he and some other clan figures like Sheikh Isaaq weren't actually Arabians but local Horners (Somalis etc.) of some sort because their genealogies don't hold to scrutiny. The Harla claim is interesting but unfounded; no evidence for it anywhere. Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing worth noting about Sheikh Darod though is that his "origin story" has some blatant Waaqist roots. From what I recall, the story goes that he was descended onto the top of a tree (a sycamore, if I recall correctly, but I might be wrong on what sort of tree it was) and he told the people of the land around him that he would remain atop the tree until they brought him the daughter of the local leader to wed and once they did he, a saintly figure, would come down from the tree top and guide them or all the people would be happy or something along those lines. This is, though I've lost the links for it, an apparently documented recurring story among Waaqists.

In fact, a good part of the Somali obsession with the idea of "saintly" people who have some special connection to God and whose blessings and curses are taken very seriously & why he had to be standing atop a tree is something rather rooted in Waaqism; a belief system we know was the prior belief of at least many pre-Islamic Somalis and is somewhat still followed by some Oromos today. Here's a study that goes into how important certain types of trees are to Waaqists among other Waaqists ideas and customs. It's humorous that he is historically remembered as an Islamic proselytizer but the story of how he founded the Darod clan by marrying Dobira looks to be rooted in Waaqist beliefs. Awale-Abdi (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Habesha People

I am not edit warring I am trying to add a properly sourced content and what you are telling me is that I am not allowed to add contents without permission. As far as I know Wikipedia is an open source where anybody can add contents so long as it is properly sourced with a reliable published sources. And any issues with the source or if there are any violations then they can be discussed to reach consensus. So far you provided only one particular issue which is regarding to lulu.com and that one is replaced with another source. And what do you mean by You still have not brought any reliable sources? I have told you repeatedly that every sentences are sourced with reliable published books. That being said you may have problems with the sources or have observed violations then you may list them out at the talk page. This way we will have a real discussions and arguments which will make it easier for higher level administrators to take sides and may even intervene based on the points provided. The more you support your points with sources and rule's shortcuts the more you convince administrators, but if you keep on insisting your points are write without any support then that wont get you anywhere! Gathering votes for 1+1=3 is not a consensus but convincing one another is what consensus meant in Wikipedia. Something that doesn't convince administrators will not be accepted even if the vote has majority. Remember at this moment we both are at equal level and none of us has the capacity to impose page protection! Unless convincing reason is provided for me or to others I see no reason for stopping my reverting! Without your issues are listed and explained clearly how do we reach consensus, since I can't make consensus with only me engaging in discussion? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeda encourages bold edits but once you have editors opposing your edit you must stop reintroducing it into the article. Edit warring is disruptive therefore you must gain consensus or risk being blocked. Everyone can see that you removed citations and inserting fringe sources into the article. Why remove Oxford source? Just because you don't agree with something does not give you the right to remove it. Its an encyclopedia not a blog. Zekenyan (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open for everyone and anyone can add contents, no need for permission. It seems like you are the only one opposing the addition of the contents. Since it is us, two of us making dialogues then if you listed all the issues clearly for me or other wikipedians it would be the first step for a serious discussion. Actually am just here for sharing knowledge and if I am provied with convincing reasons there is no reason for me to accept and make corrections, that is ofcourse if you are willing to make a serious discussion. Unless no body wants to engage in real discussion by basing each and every claims by sources then how is it possible to reach consensus. Supporting our claims with sources will make us convince each other since you and I are not professional in all fields it's better we support every claims with other professionals, even highly professional people quote other professionals to write their books. I have reversed it again. Just delete only the ones you disagree with and then we will talk about it but if you delete the whole of my addition then you must give reasons for all of them. Then from your listed reasons we begin our dialogue and try to solve all the issues one by one. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zekenyan, the question is who is disrupting here and who is most likely to be blocked? Actually the obstacle for improvement of this article is you by not willing to engage in a serious discussion, like for instance I have summarized our discussion and you haven't forwarded a one line comment about it. If you say you are not disrupting then you might have provided your say on the summary provided by saying "I don't agree on this or that statement, but I agree on this one so let's add this and remove that etc etc" something that shows your serious commitment for discussion and consensus. What you are doing is that you point one simple issue like the one you pointed from lulu and based on that you want all of the many sentences to be deleted, while you could have just deleted that specific issue and leave the rest of it. Now I'll ask you again to list your reasons for your insist to delete a content that is written based on a reliable sources. For your continuous suggestions that consensus is required otherwise it will be reverted, please see the rule here WP:DRNC that says:

 Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" 

And for unacceptable reversions see the rule here WP:DONTREVERT. I hope you will abide by these rules the next time I revert it back. Since the rule says to give warning before revering I want to let you know that I'll revert it back tomorrow, in the mean time if you have objections/reasons you may list them out in the article's talk page and we discuss about it in advance. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haile Selassie Gugsa

Hello Zekenyan, I need your help in resolving a dispute I am having with tell me Sennaitgebremariam on a Tigrayan article with regards to a Notable Tigrayan Haile Selassie Gugsa. I provided citations and worded why he is Notable but tell me Sennaitgebremariam keeps changing and destroying on what made HaileSelassieGugsa notable. Please provide your help. I don't want to continue changing and adding more Citations to show the most accurate description of HaileSelassieGugsa because it will be seen as Edit Warring. tell me Sennaitgebremariam is edit Warring by Reverting and then adding completely grammatically confusing sentences that confuses readers including myself. Otakrem (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your question on the Tigrayan talkpage.Otakrem (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao

It sucks that we can't continue our discussion, but your reasons for being unable to are quiet clear I must say. Though, it was more or less over anyways. Don't worry, I'll make sure all your outlandish edits are removed :). Kiziotherapy too! Nonetheless, ciao! AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zekenyan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]