User talk:Wadaad

I need sources for what you wrote in the Saho atricle. "The Saho can be traced back to 500 BC, inhabiting their current area" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD3:A00C:0:19BE:E7E:425B:41BB (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Africa

Hi Wadaad,

I saw your work on articles related to Africa and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch the WikiProject Africa talk page, which is a noticeboard for Wikipedia's Africa coverage. It's a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about Africa-related content. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider adopting a cleanup category or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 23:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Haplogroup E-M329) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Haplogroup E-M329, Wadaad!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

While reviewing this article, I have added an opening sentence to provide context. You had better check my addition.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where the source you are reinstating backs the text

The main ethnic groups of the Horn of Africa (Ethiosemites and Cushites) are related. This is both common sense and stated in the text.Wadaad (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a response to my question. I asked about the source. Please quote the relevant part of the source. See WP:VERIFY. Commonsense doesn't meet our policy in this case.

Look up the text. Page 1 says Horn African populations are related. Stop being suck a knucklehead. Wadaad (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, see assume good faith and no personal attacks. I'd take it to the reliable sources noticeboard except another editor agrees with me and has removed it, replacing it with another source. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts for articles and content relating to biographies of living or recently diseased people

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 08:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wadaad. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Haplogroup E-V12. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Meroitic language

On an entirely different note; I’ve been wondering if I should include the fact that the Meroitic Language is unclassified or even in some cases regarded as a Nilo-Saharan language to underline the discontinuity between earlier Nubian civilizations. I feel like it’s history-robbing if not made clear but I can’t find an apt place to put it. Do you feel like there’s a moral or Wikipedian obligation to do so? MusIbr (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @MusIbr: Discontinuities are always important to note. I see too many claims for historicity/continuity that are simply impossible to prove or indeed where the archaeological record contradicts them. Ethnic nationalism is sometimes the reason. You'll need academic sources of course. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: “I see too many claims for historicity/continuity that are simply impossible to prove or indeed where the archeological record constradicts them.” Do you mean on the Cushitic peoples page? Or just generally as an admin? I thought I’d been relatively fair and balanced but I would be interested to hear where I went wrong considering there might be some bias I’m missing. I’ll make sure to add in the parts about the Meroitic language. MusIbr (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

You are being disruptive at Ashkenazi Jews. Please review the WP:CONSENSUS policy, and abide by it. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Migration Path

Hello! I know we got off on the wrong foot when we first meet, but I’d like to see us get pass it. However, if you wish not to then let it be so. Anyways, what are your thoughts on the possible migration path of Somalis? AcidSnow (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AcidSnow, I believe they are from Northeastern Sudan (roughly present-day Beja territory) and subsequently entered the Horn of Africa via Eritrea and the Danakil lowlands. This is supported by uniparental, TMRCA, and autosomal analysis. Wadaad (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This migration also makes the most sense given what we already know about Somali history through oral, archeology, and historical documents. However, many linguists support a south to north migration. What are your thoughts on that? In addition, thank you for your response and how your message was clear and to the point. AcidSnow (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]